Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 2005723)

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.

Originally Posted by Probe (Post 2005799)

I can't really think of anything they want other than scope relief (NO) and some replacement for MOU 22 that they think can bully us into extending. The only scope relief I would agree to would be big RJ's flown on UAL property.

MOU 22 seemed kind of silly. Pay us extra, to be extend, automatically? Sounds good in theory, but in practice it incentivises us to be late. Plus they can't figure out how to do add pay reliably.

All that being said, I would prefer to NEVER go into full section 6 negotiations. The pilots always lose. We always wait for multiple years, only to get another dissappointing contract.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 2005823)

.....The gesture of an extension was not a benevolent one when you consider it originates from the minds who wanted to end the flying/bunky FO positions.

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer (Post 2005825)

??? :confused: I didn't get that memo....what does that mean?

Originally Posted by Probe (Post 2005799)

I can't really think of anything they want other than scope relief (NO) and some replacement for MOU 22 that they think can bully us into extending. The only scope relief I would agree to would be big RJ's flown on UAL property.

MOU 22 seemed kind of silly. Pay us extra, to be extend, automatically? Sounds good in theory, but in practice it incentivises us to be late. Plus they can't figure out how to do add pay reliably.

All that being said, I would prefer to NEVER go into full section 6 negotiations. The pilots always lose. We always wait for multiple years, only to get another dissappointing contract.

Originally Posted by jsled (Post 2005894)

Changes to FRMS and a replacement for MOU 22. That's what they want. Greater long haul completion factor reliability. I'm down with that. Just show me the money. Pay raise, fuloughees made whole, reserve tweeks, and some new jets. This COULD be good....or not. Just have to wait and see.

As for Section 6....you are spot on. The SWA contract has been amendable since 2012. They've been stuck in Sec 6 for years. The airline biz has been pretty good during this time...LUV stock has quadrupled since 2012. So where is their leverage? HA. They just voted down a TA, and Mgt says they'll get back to negotiations next Spring. Daaaang. Yeah...let's just hold out for Sec 6....Not :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by oldmako (Post 2005959)

I think some are underestimating what the company will want in exchange for some cash now and some planes later.

Along with relaxation in the long haul duty day, I smell TWO pilots doing EU flying from both EWR and IAD. After all, that how it was done at LCAL and today's UA resembles LCAL more than it does LUAL. After all, we will have relaxed our position on fatigue issues. And if they could secure that, forget about upgrades for several years. They would instantly be overstaffed. Their list will be long, and we'll make them capitulate on one or two so we can assuage our "brain surgeon" egos and talk tough in ops, and then we'll agree to the rest. They win. Again.


I would also expect them attempt to significantly dilute profit sharing. Its been said here forever, they think long term while we think about next year. We are truly our own worst enemies. I laugh now when I read all the complaining about reserve abuse when we HANDED it to them in the current agreement.

And in a few years, after we've given away work rules and QOL items (in exchange for and increase in hourly pay), they'll come after the "cushy" hourly rates (which WE paid for) during the next economic downturn. Why? "because we gotta save the company!"

Pessimistic as always, James.

Originally Posted by AxlF16 (Post 2005710)

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.