I was referring to the SWA pilots. Not us.

I usually agree with you, but not here. How does full section 6 negotiations somehow create more leverage?

If we are still negotiating past the amendable date (usually by years!!!!) the company is the one with the leverage. They are saving big $$$$ every day we are negotiating. WE get coerced into another substandard contract because - we are tired of being underpaid.

Presumably they will still need whatever they are seeking now. They need something badly enough that they are (allegedly...) willing to spend money early. We can either cash in that leverage on a few items now or try to use it to prod them into an agreement on the full CBA during Sec6 later...and hope the leverage still exists. The one thing we can be sure of is that if we cash in now, that 'leverage' won't exist in the future -- we'll be hoping additional leverage materializes.

I'm not necessarily against these negotiations, but I see absolutely ZERO reason to entertain ANY concession. We are in growth mode - nearly every one of us has the opportunity to make additional money with an upgrade. We all have two 3% raises coming over the next 15 months. A growing number of pilots are in their first 12 years and are thus getting pay raises each year. It's not like the stagnant post 9/11 era! If we can't resist selling pieces of our contract NOW, then we are hopeless.

Edit add:
When/If I have the opportunity to vote on a TA from this negotiation, I will make my decision based on several considerations.
My assumptions are:
- If we vote 'No', we will enter Sec6 as previously planned
- The leverage that exists today will most likely still exist when Sec6 negotiations begin
- Voting 'Yes' will extend Sec6 negotiations by ~1-2 years (on top of the extension + estimated 3 yr process) - meaning no new CBA until ~2022'ish'
- The company will use whatever changes we allow in the most harmful way possible to the pilot group (worse than any scenario I can predict)

Given the above, I will look very closely at the things that are NOT being addressed in the negotiation and subsequent TA. Am I willing to wait 6+ years (vs 1-3) for improvements in these things? I'm going to go back through the materials we were provided when we voted on our current CBA for a full explanation of all sections. Off the top of my cranium I can think of Sick Leave, Vacation Credit per day, Training Credit per day, Reassignment rules, etc...

I also expect ALPA to explain WHAT the company wanted, WHY they wanted it so quickly, and HOW badly they want it. IOW, I want a feel for the nature and amount of leverage we really have. This should be easy to explain, and any obfuscation will make me VERY wary. Without a solid understanding of the companies desires and our leverage I will vote NO.

Finally I'll consider the merits of the TA. In short, are we extracting the maximum benefit from the leverage we have and from the modifications we agree to make. If this isn't a slam dunk then I'm voting NO. It's worth noting that I need to do a lot of study, research, and discussion about FRMS & MOU22, and the impacts of their modifications. That has begun.

I view this process the same as the old saying "I refuse to belong to any club that would have me as a member". Honestly, I expect to be thoroughly underwhelmed by whatever proposal the company pushes across the table. Take your best guess and divide by 3. I just don't think they have it in them to offer enough compensation to get my attention. The catch 22 is that the more money they offer, the more suspicious I'll be that they are pulling something over on us.

I see you are on the 756? Which base?
I bid reserve (although I can hold a line) for a bunch of reasons...
I have not been abused. They've called me here and there with illegal assignments (less than the contractual call out), I call them back, say it's not contractually legal, and I am not waiving it. No problems, they remove it.
I actually went "non qual" today because of landings...
Last trip was Sept. 4 as an extra IRO, and last landed August 12th....

I'm willing to hear the offer, but I don't think the final product will be enough for me to vote in favor of extending a jcba born from a bankruptcy contract. Section 6 will not create more leverage but will make available the areas in need of improvement versus the topics the company wishes to discuss. They came to us. That in itself cost them more $$ then what I would accept. That $$ can be translated into a contract on time, or a costlier contract after the amendable date. When the company wants something, time moves at warp speed. Although not on the same scale, remember bankruptcy and how fast the contract was shoved down our throats and implemented?

I think we all have a great opportunity in the future for our contract. It might be in the form if an extension or not. The one truth in this is if we stand together and keep our eye on the goal, we will benefit more than not.

I don't take exception with anything you've posted here. Your logic and reasoning, though it differs from mine, is certainly plausible. The one thing I feel needs to be addressed in your post is your math. You say that if we don't accept an extension you're looking at Sec 6 in 1-3 years (and you're assuming it will be an improvement and not a concession.... not something I would personally bet the farm on based on a descending economy). But if we DO accept an extension it would be 6+ years. Let's keep apples to apples here and say that the timeline for a section 6 is going to be the same regardless of when it's negotiated. So you are looking at 1-3 years, or 3-5 years. Not 6+. It's only a 2 year extension.

Just a quick point. It's not "illegal" for them to call you and ask you to come early for a reserve assignment. It's allowed, but they pay you add pay to do it. But you certainly can (and did) turn that down

The last two sentences are DEFINITELY important for all of us to keep in mind, whether we are pro extension or not.

There are few 'knowns', so assumptions are required. My rationale assumes a cost of 1-2 years time to giving away/selling leverage. I think that's fair. To your point that the companies financial position may turn south between now and a normal Sec6 CBA, I suppose you could weight that as a cost to voting NO, though I don't think it would change my calculus much.

With only 3 legacies, I don't expect to have a credible strike threat anytime soon. If that's true, we'll need some other way to compel the company to reach an agreement. Without leverage we will negotiate for a LONG time. I'm not counting on being able to play the NMB like we did last time....and even if we could, I don't think we'd get the contract we deserve. In this environment it'll be absolutely critical to use every piece of leverage to its potential. That means we have to identify it, correctly value it, and effectively use it at the negotiating table. We can't afford to squander any leverage...and this expedited timeline already raises red flags.

I agree with everything you've said. There is a very complicated cost risk analysis that needs to be done. SWA turned down their TA after waiting 3 years. And that was an OBVIOUS move. It was horrible. Now they are looking at spring before they even MEET again. So nothing for probably another year minimum. What's strange is that in the BEST negotiating environment in recent history DAL and SWA have been handed DOG TA's. This suggests to me that leverage is a fickle beast not easily understood. Let's say in 2012 SWA had been offered a 25% pay raise over 2 years, which would have brought them to 2014. They negotiate from there and it takes another 3 years. At least they would have been +25% EACH YEAR for those 3 years. Plus any future raise % would have been on top of that already higher number.

Of course that's the easy part. Pay is always straight forward. It's the details in the rest of the deal that's the rub. It's an interesting exercise but it sounds like it's dead anyway so not important.

Definitely agree that assumptions need to me made to play oh your scenario. But to be fair you should make the same assumption for both situations. A 1-3 year TA negotiation time should be applied to both scenarios. Not really level if you're saying a no extension section 6 is 1-3 years but if we get an extension then section 6 after would be 6+ years from now. It should be 3-5. Just need to stick to the same assumption of time in either scenario to compare accurately