flares

Is the following scenario possible (based on the wording in the TA) if we agree to this TA?
Yes or no.

We get a 3% raise and a 1% signing bonus based on a year in which 4.a.2.b was in effect, the company gets the FDA's.
We are out of section 6 negotiations.
"Warming talks" continue.
The economy goes south this fall and the company invokes 4.a.2.b. with the modifications included in the grievance settlement in the TA.
Since bases with less than 100 pilots are excepted, along with the 777; the pilots at HKG, Cologne, and LAX, and the 777, fly 90+ hour lines. The company also builds MD lines out of LAX and uses MEM based pilots to fly these extra lines, much like they have done out of ANC in the past.
Next March we don't exercise our option to extend the TA, and enter section 6 talks again.
Summer of 2012 it becomes apparent that the company is not bargaining in good faith so we seek relief from the NMB.
The NMB tells us to pound sand, that we've only been in section 6 negotiations 4 months, and to get back to the table.
November of 2012 a new administration is elected that is not as labor friendly as the current one.
A new NMB is appointed in Feb 2013.
The company continues to drag its feet and we end up going back to the NMB in the spring/summer of 2013 seeking relief.
The NMB, favoring management, doesn't help us.
So we arrive at the middle of 2013, or later, with no new contract.
That's 2 and 1/2 years since the amendable date and all we have gotten is a 3% raise, a 1% signing bonus based on a 4.a.2.b. year, loss of leverage, and a much less friendly environment for negotiations (vis-a-vis, a non-labor friendly administration and NMB).
The company has it's FDA's and is able to pad the corporate bottom line, via 4.a.2.b., on the backs of the pilots - again.
Is this possible?
Yes or no.

As an aside, if the NPRM is such a show stopper, how did the Pinnacle pilots reach a complete agreement a few weeks ago, with language that allows the reopening of affected sections after the NPRM is released?

ANCFRTDG

Hummm ? It's possible..........

4A2B

Hate to tell you, that is all possible whether or not you vote yes or no.

Actually might be worse if you vote no (the 4a2b part) because no lines will be restricted, the entire 727 group could once again get the shaft is what I see. At least there is some low end protection, I do see where some could get no change, meaning stay in the high BLG world.

Lots of supposition, so what are you saying? If your scenario is true should we vote no if the answer is "yes" to your scenario? If the economy tanks I would think we would take the extra 3% raise and extend the deal, because I would not think we would want to talk to them in those circumstances.

Lastly, are we going to let an unfair, unequal and especially an unjustified application of this section get used again? I hope we are better than that as a group. Not counting on that one though.

ptarmigan

As contrasted against:

We reject the TA. Nothing material happens for at least six months after the new NPRM rules are out. During that time, the company hires more and then the economy turns south, so we are way overstaffed and we go back into 4a2b with NO changes. The bad economy leads to a Republican in the White House. We are negotiating for pay raises and improvements in a bad economy and an administration that is less labor friendly. We end up with no gains at all. In the meantime, the company has opened Paris and Hong Kong anyway, under current FDA. No problem getting Captains to bid, as there are no raises anyway. The new hires jump at the chance and all seats are easily filled.

In the alternative you seem to favor, we have gained what, exactly?

ptarmigan

That is the reality, and a "no vote" is not going to change that. In fact, it is likely to make it worse. All the "yes" votes will be ****ed that we passed up the opportunity for some improvement. The "no" votes will still be willing to stand up for improvements either way. How many of the "yes" votes would push for action that would accelerate the process before the NPRM is settled out if we vote against this deal? I am not saying that is right, or that I agree with that sentiment. I am just stating the reality of our situation, expanding on 4a2b's statement. This board is not reflective of the majority.

FDXLAG

The reality is that 4A2b will never be fixed unless we take a stand. Letting it slide just this once is not taking a stand, especially since all of the give backs in this TA are ours. No where in the Terms of Service does it say that this board is reflective of the majority. Everyone here will readily admit that a 3% raise and a 1% signing bonus has 40% of the pilot group drooling and this TA will probably pass. But it obviously makes you feel superior by continuing to post that the minority is represented here so wipe the drool off your keyboard and go ahead.

ptarmigan

There is no "superior" about it. It is a statement of fact that bears repeating so people will not be deluded into a false sense of empowerment. It is easy to forget reality when you are surrounded by a group of people that think the same way. I am sorry that you are offended by that. I never said that I like the reality. I just stated my opinion of the situation. You are free to attack my opinion, but attacking me is really off base. From what you have written, you appear to agree with my opinion on the situation, though.

iarapilot

Seems to me that the Q is....is this a fair and amicable deal for us? Forget about the questions about NMB, economy, etc.

I feel we give the Company a lot, they give us chicken scratch. Based on that principle, I think it stinks. Later down the road when hindsight is in play, I figure that rejecting this TA was the proper thing to do. But what do I know?

FDXLAG

Actually If we check the record you will find you are agreeing with my assessment as I said on day 1 this will pass. ALPA voting is family fued not jeopardy. The majority is right; while not necessarily being correct.

However if you are talking about your assessment of 4A2b being worse if this fails you are wrong. This TA preserves weak language that the company will exploit as they see fit. The 85% language and restriction on fleets basically falls into the parameters of how they utilized 4A2b last year. The only thing we give up by agreeing to this TA is a chance to use the leverage the MEC admits we have to fix 4A2b.

DLax85

...psst

They aren't opening a domicile in CDG.

The French govt is not playing along.

HKG and CDG are already covered in the current FDA LOAs.

If they just wanted to open CDG they'd do it right now under the current agreements.

They truly want something different than what they have right now.

They want COL and more senior FOs in HKG.