Originally Posted by alfaromeo

The fact is that any military unit spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Any sports team spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Are they cowards and turncoats also? This argument is seriously one of the dumbest I have read anytime.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

There are two signatures on any new LOA, ours and the company's. If you don't consider what the company is thinking then you will fail every time.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

It sounds sexy to say "Give me, give me, I demand this and that." and then when you fail at least you can pat your own back and crow for the crowd. If you actually want to accomplish something, you have to consider their point of view.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

In the company's point of view, they see 15 pax a day. This provision in the PWA has been there for years and it's 15 not 1500, that is reality. So when they are considering giving away something, their return on investment is viewed as 15 pax a day. That is how they view it and no amount of personal attacks on your part is going to change it. If you want their signature on a document then you have to consider what they want.

Originally Posted by Check Essential

We are through the looking glass here.

This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific.

What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender.

I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up.
They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table?

I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders.
By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence.

Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract".

Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.

Originally Posted by Rudder

Just got an email stating that the Pacific LOA passed

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

In the end, you have to weigh the cost/benefits of each path. In this LOA I see the advantage to a deal is gaining a backstop block hour protection in the Pacific.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

The disadvantage is letting Delta continue to code share with 15 pax a day out of NRT. Which of those is more important to you?

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

The company sees the advantage in gaining the revenue from 15 pax a day out of NRT. They see the disadvantage in ceding control over capacity in the Pacific. Which of those is more important them? Next, at what point will they tip over and choose the path of no deal? They have that option and if you assume they don't then you are just lying to yourself. So in determining the tipping point, should you listen to your negotiators, who have lived this agreement for months or just an Internet blowhard that makes up whatever scenario suits them best? Don't forget that there are professional negotiators with decades of experience also in the room.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

To me, the option of blustery and bloviation is complete surrender. It might make the bloviator look good to the forum crowd, but you have doomed your pilots to status quo. If you don't believe me, then look at USAPA. The last contract change at US Airways was in 2004. Look at their contract. But hey, they talk a good game. Maybe for you fighting words and reps making themselves look good give you all the compensation you need. I prefer cash myself. Who is delivering the cash and who is delivering the bull crap by the boat load?

Originally Posted by Check Essential

We are through the looking glass here.

This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific.

What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender.

I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up.
They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table?

I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders.
By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence.

Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract".

Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita.

Originally Posted by Free Bird

Time to re-up the DPA card.