Letter to Council 5 Reps
12-07-2015, 05:22 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Originally Posted by Coach67
A better letter to your Reps!!!!
The letter below was sent to the C#5 Reps. You may or may not have seen it. I totally disagree with their sentiment on this issue.
Only you gentlemen have the total knowledge of the leverage we might be giving up with this extension. Our current contract has much that needs fixed and was voted on out of fear of whipsawing the two pilot groups. You also know that unfortunately most pilots only look at the pay rates when evaluating a contract. Unfortunately that is how they will vote as well.
As my elected Reps I expect that you will look at the TA and evaluate the merits within and balance the leverage given up to get the Extension TA. I implore you to not fall into the trap that many fall into as elected reps. I call it the “Pontious Pilate (pilot) mentality” where the Reps just wash their hands of their responsibilities and “let the pilots decide.” You will most certainly hear those exact words in the debate to approve or disapprove of the Extension TA.
Do the evaluation on the merits of the TA alone and if it doesn’t balance in the pilot’s favor, do not waste the leverage we will be giving up! That leverage might be used to fix the entire agreement warts and all.
The letter below was sent to the C#5 Reps. You may or may not have seen it. I totally disagree with their sentiment on this issue.
Only you gentlemen have the total knowledge of the leverage we might be giving up with this extension. Our current contract has much that needs fixed and was voted on out of fear of whipsawing the two pilot groups. You also know that unfortunately most pilots only look at the pay rates when evaluating a contract. Unfortunately that is how they will vote as well.
As my elected Reps I expect that you will look at the TA and evaluate the merits within and balance the leverage given up to get the Extension TA. I implore you to not fall into the trap that many fall into as elected reps. I call it the “Pontious Pilate (pilot) mentality” where the Reps just wash their hands of their responsibilities and “let the pilots decide.” You will most certainly hear those exact words in the debate to approve or disapprove of the Extension TA.
Do the evaluation on the merits of the TA alone and if it doesn’t balance in the pilot’s favor, do not waste the leverage we will be giving up! That leverage might be used to fix the entire agreement warts and all.
12-07-2015, 06:43 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
Have you been informed directly by an mec member that this agreement cannot be sent back for tweaking?
This from McKeen
7. Face to face negotiations will be on an agreed upon schedule for 45 days beginning on the date agreed upon by the parties. If an agreement is not reached within 45 days, then the Parties may mutually agree to extend the timeline, or discontinue negotiations without prejudice or bias. Negotiating positions will not be cited in future Section 6 negotiations.
An agreement was reached. So it's on to Section 6 if this fails. And we start all over again because as I'm sure you know, every single item has a cost benefit. There is a total "bucket" of money the company will spend, and it's up to the negotiators to move it around. With a full section 6 it may be moved around differently than in this AIP. The company has a nice long list of concessions they would be thrilled to discuss in Section 6. Count on it
Last edited by gettinbumped; 12-07-2015 at 07:06 AM.
12-07-2015, 06:44 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
Interesting. I'm hearing the TA is not scrapped with a no vote.
12-07-2015, 06:55 AM
#25
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Flytolive
It can absolutely go back to be amended if the MEC and the company agree to do that. Those saying it can't be amended are pretending the MEC resolution that allowed this negotiation is not amendable. That is silly.
Point to me in ONE document published by either the company or the MC that we can send this back for improvements and re-negotiate. That's NOT how this deal was framed. Could it happen? Of course, anything can happen. But you're making it up to try to sell your position if you're suggesting it would be an option. Many DAL no voters were all suggesting that a rejected TA would be quickly fixed and presented for improvements. That's clearly NOT going to happen. (BTW not suggesting the DAL "No" vote was a bad thing. That was a terrible deal and I would have checked the "HELL NO" box on my ballot. Merely that the idea that there will be some quick renegotiation is often bantered about by pilots as a reason to vote no, and it doesn't often turn out that way. If you vote no, you should be prepared to accept that there will be no change to your current offer for a LONG time. DAL and SWA pilots have just demonstrated that clearly and correctly IMHO).
Last edited by gettinbumped; 12-07-2015 at 07:15 AM.
12-07-2015, 07:05 AM
#26
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Coach67
A better letter to your Reps!!!!
The letter below was sent to the C#5 Reps. You may or may not have seen it. I totally disagree with their sentiment on this issue.
Only you gentlemen have the total knowledge of the leverage we might be giving up with this extension. Our current contract has much that needs fixed and was voted on out of fear of whipsawing the two pilot groups. You also know that unfortunately most pilots only look at the pay rates when evaluating a contract. Unfortunately that is how they will vote as well.
As my elected Reps I expect that you will look at the TA and evaluate the merits within and balance the leverage given up to get the Extension TA. I implore you to not fall into the trap that many fall into as elected reps. I call it the “Pontious Pilate (pilot) mentality” where the Reps just wash their hands of their responsibilities and “let the pilots decide.” You will most certainly hear those exact words in the debate to approve or disapprove of the Extension TA.
Do the evaluation on the merits of the TA alone and if it doesn’t balance in the pilot’s favor, do not waste the leverage we will be giving up! That leverage might be used to fix the entire agreement warts and all.
The letter below was sent to the C#5 Reps. You may or may not have seen it. I totally disagree with their sentiment on this issue.
Only you gentlemen have the total knowledge of the leverage we might be giving up with this extension. Our current contract has much that needs fixed and was voted on out of fear of whipsawing the two pilot groups. You also know that unfortunately most pilots only look at the pay rates when evaluating a contract. Unfortunately that is how they will vote as well.
As my elected Reps I expect that you will look at the TA and evaluate the merits within and balance the leverage given up to get the Extension TA. I implore you to not fall into the trap that many fall into as elected reps. I call it the “Pontious Pilate (pilot) mentality” where the Reps just wash their hands of their responsibilities and “let the pilots decide.” You will most certainly hear those exact words in the debate to approve or disapprove of the Extension TA.
Do the evaluation on the merits of the TA alone and if it doesn’t balance in the pilot’s favor, do not waste the leverage we will be giving up! That leverage might be used to fix the entire agreement warts and all.
Oh wait. I get it, the author of the letter is only suggesting UNITED pilots are too stupid to know if they have a good deal or not. Because SWA and DAL pilots just voted down the substandard deals they were brought. They were smart enough to be trusted with a TA vote but we aren't. Got it.
12-07-2015, 07:14 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
There is a total "bucket" of money the company will spend, and it's up to the negotiators to move it around.
If memory serves, that "bucket" can also change size SIGNIFICANTLY --and quickly-- depending upon which side of the table has more leverage at any given time including whatever internal and external factors are in play (examples: UAL C2000 and C2003).
If we are only trying to split the perceived bucket we are not maintaining adequate situational awareness, IMHO.
The company has demonstrated zero hesitation to use whatever resources they have to bear in challenging times to reduce the size of bucket. When the times are the best they have ever been (financially) what is our attitude toward the size of the bucket in negotiations?
I don't have all (or any) answers but that question strikes at the heart of our current situation.
12-07-2015, 07:20 AM
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
You are on the right track, but not quite there, IMHO.
If memory serves, that "bucket" can also change size SIGNIFICANTLY --and quickly-- depending upon which side of the table has more leverage at any given time including whatever internal and external factors are in play (examples: UAL C2000 and C2003).
If we are only trying to split the perceived bucket we are not maintaining adequate situational awareness.
If memory serves, that "bucket" can also change size SIGNIFICANTLY --and quickly-- depending upon which side of the table has more leverage at any given time including whatever internal and external factors are in play (examples: UAL C2000 and C2003).
If we are only trying to split the perceived bucket we are not maintaining adequate situational awareness.
But for the immediate future, the bucket is the size it will be. The question is did we divide it correctly, and did we drain it fully in this negotiation? Hopefully the membership will get a chance to decide.
12-07-2015, 07:30 AM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
You are on the right track, but not quite there, IMHO.
If memory serves, that "bucket" can also change size SIGNIFICANTLY --and quickly-- depending upon which side of the table has more leverage at any given time including whatever internal and external factors are in play (examples: UAL C2000 and C2003).
If we are only trying to split the perceived bucket we are not maintaining adequate situational awareness, IMHO.
The company has demonstrated zero hesitation to use whatever resources they have to bear in challenging times to reduce the size of bucket. When the times are the best they have ever been (financially) what is our attitude toward the size of the bucket in negotiations?
I don't have all (or any) answers but that question strikes at the heart of our current situation.
If memory serves, that "bucket" can also change size SIGNIFICANTLY --and quickly-- depending upon which side of the table has more leverage at any given time including whatever internal and external factors are in play (examples: UAL C2000 and C2003).
If we are only trying to split the perceived bucket we are not maintaining adequate situational awareness, IMHO.
The company has demonstrated zero hesitation to use whatever resources they have to bear in challenging times to reduce the size of bucket. When the times are the best they have ever been (financially) what is our attitude toward the size of the bucket in negotiations?
I don't have all (or any) answers but that question strikes at the heart of our current situation.
My attitude is that we have a golden opportunity to take advantage of two things: 1) a new CEO who wants to (for whatever reason you want to insert) improve labor relations with his employees. 2) the company would like to improve its operational integrity on its ULH so as to use its new airplanes to the best of their ability to compete against the other players in the international arena. They have agreed to pay for those two things in the form of industry leading wages with no concessions and a DAL me-too clause. The question of the day is, is that enough? That's (hopefully) for us to answer. I'm glad you agree that this is the best negotiating environment in history, because I don't see it improving in the next several years while we are trying to go through a full section 6. This historically good negotiating environment has brought you 1) a crappy TA to DAL. 2) a crappy TA to SWA. 3) no TA to UPS after 3+ years. 4) a deal at FEDEX with good wages but some concessions. So I don't see it as some negotiating nirvana.
12-07-2015, 07:33 AM
#30
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Lastly with regards to bucket size. I personally would rather negotiate a contract in 2.5 years from now from a pay rate a MINIMUM of 15% above where we would be at the end of next year anyway and 21% above where we are right now (go DAL go!!!!!!). When you are "costing" a deal that doesn't have to include those pay rates there is a lot more money that can be spent elsewhere.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
