Meme In Command

It's not even remotely the same thing. However, we have already had an age extension in the past, so I ask you again how much leverage age 65 gave the pilot group?

FangsF15

Small point of order, just for clarity for the masses. The switch is from the 767-300 to the 330 (pay band). Only 1 in 4 of the current 7ER fleet is a WB which needs replacing.

Except the contract DOES account for 67, because the PWA clearly states in 26.C.3.c:

They may not like it, but they will have ZERO traction to get a direct consession from 67. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't attempt to extract indirect things in the form of intransigence or a reduction in thier topline number (which we will never really know anyway...)

180ToAJ

Yes, the PWA says FAA mandatory retirement age.
I am not arguing that and you are kind of missing the point. It DOES NOT specify the value or prohibit an increase in value to be used in future negotiations. It just protects pilots in case of an age increase in the current cycle.
Both parties have a numeric value they are trying to reach in every negotiation.
I am saying the company will say the LTD benefit has had a substantial increase in value. They will use this in negotiations.
Are you suggesting they won’t?

”We can’t increase DC without some give in LTD benefit.”
”According to 26.c.3.c LTD is protected until FAA mandatory retirement age, so we want 20% DC”
”Yes, we understand 26.c.3.c. We intend to keep that benefit for the pilots, but it has had a significant increase in value with the retirement age increase. Due to its value increase of X, we are unable to increase DC.”

Again, negotiations are about cold hard numbers, not emotions and bravado. This gives them numbers.

FangsF15

As I said, it doesn't stop them from indirect negotiating to their topline number. But they cannot bring that up, since the language in the PWA clearly contemplates it rising. It may well limit how much they are willing to do in other areas, but we cannot and will not ever know their negotiating range. But there are literally dozens of other areas in the contract which are similarly unbound and subject to an increase in cost. Premium pay is one. They would never be able to come to the table and say "We need a concession from you because the cost of GS's have gone up with our mismanagement of pilot staffing, and they are costing us too much."

Look, I'm mostly agnostic on 67, with a slight lean against. I just don't see this argument as a compelling one against 67.

sailingfun

None since ICAO went to 65 first and ALPA was able to avoid any retroactivity. That spared the company having to pay 5 additional years of disability to all pilots currently out. In this case the company is going to need significant contract changes or it's going to incurs huge costs. They will show up hat in hand the day after 67 is announced. We are however really just speaking hypothetically since I think 67 is dead and I think that's a good thing overall.
One thing I should mention. I think several people on here are way overestimating the costs disability would incur. It's less than a 4% yearly raise to the contract.

Viper25

If ICAO doesn’t go to 67 and we do, the union has plenty of traction for concessions when the company wants relief from the staffing and bidding catastrophe that emerges.

FangsF15

100% agree with that. And we better extract a painfully high value (to 180toAJ's point above) if we are to even consider any changes. Like when AA's system allowed most pilots to drop thier Christmas schedule a few years ago, and APA had management over a barrel and extracted several big improvments to bail them out.

Meme In Command

Now these are angles I hadn't even considered. So I guess there actually would be some leverage on our side.

In order for us to reopen the contract to hash this out, both the company and the union have to agree to it first, correct?

FangsF15

Correctamundo.

180ToAJ

I see what you are saying. There would be some immediate leverage for us. There is also the status quo of what is established in the contract. All of which are good.
With that said, the nerds on VA Ave will be punching away on their calculators. The next contract cycle would be some defense protecting 401k contributions and LTD. I’m not saying we wouldn’t get gains, but negotiating capital would be spent on something a lot of us didn’t necessarily want. The ability to work 2 more years and the costs associated with it.