Delta Pilots Association
12-06-2010, 02:26 PM
#3321
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
......For us, the answer to the question is also "It depends...." The market forces that will shape our contract demands will mostly center around what other pilot groups get in the next couple of years and how much money the company is making. There are market conditions that would make C2K rates impossible and there are market conditions that would make C2K rates woefully short of the mark. Setting some target now is pointless.
The only attempt to answer the question was to use an emotional argument, that is the "historical pay" argument. Back in the 1970's to buy a computer with the processing and storage power of my little laptop would have cost tens of millions of dollars and required and entire floor of an office building to house including a self contained cooling system and a halon fire extinguisher. Back in the 1970's a typical house was 1,700 square feet and was affordable to only about 50% of the population. Back in the 1970's they had really groovy clothes.
What happened in the past is absolutely irrelevant. We live in a capitalistic society and capitalism means market based solutions. You negotiate what the market will bear. I don't need to make a theoretical argument I have a real world solution that proves my point.
How is my historical pay argument emotional, while your "we have to see what other pilot groups get" is not? Please, tell me why attaching our fate to the fate of another pilot group is any less emotional than attaching our expectations to what we were able to buy in the past?
I'll re-submit below a serious post I made earlier that was never really responded to, that makes my point.
As you read point #2, understand that I am asking, in a non-emotional way, is why you think your "we have to see what other pilot groups get" argument is sound?
Basically, you are telling us that:
1.) American Pilots asking for too much.
2.) American, nor any other airline, a this point can afford what they are asking for.
3.) But, if American decides to give it to their pilots, we will ask for it, too.
Aren't you saying that if AMR corporation caves, all of a sudden DAL wil be able to print the money to pay us, and then we should go for it?
I'm not a business expert, so I'm really just asking; how does this happen?
Please read the re-print of my post below and address some of the points I made. Thanks.
I hope this is unemotional and serious enough for you.
New K Now
AKA: "True Believer"
Last edited by newKnow; 12-06-2010 at 02:39 PM.
12-06-2010, 02:36 PM
#3322
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
RE-Post for Alpha.....
Here you go, Alpha.....
Sailing,
Now, your "two bites at the apple" side (You, pineapple, acl, et al.) have given several reasons why you believe pursuing this course wouldn't be prudent:
1.) OUR FELLOW EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE SUCH AN ADVERSE REACTION THAT THEY IN TURN WILL TAKE IT OUT ON THE CUSTOMERS AND THEREFORE FINANCIALLY RUIN DELTA.
Even though this is pure speculation, I’m going to let it pass. Let’s say that the other Delta employees will be upset that we get paid so much and total mayhem ensues, which causes disruption at Delta. But Sailing, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. We don’t live in a vacuum. If you assume that Delta employees would have an adverse reaction to our huge pay raises, then you MUST assume that the pilots of Deltas competitor airlines would have the same reaction. Yes. You must assume that the pilots at American, United, Us Airways, and whoever else, would be just as ****ed as the Delta employees if we got raises and you must assume that they would do just as much to harm their airline as Delta employees would harm Delta. So, at the very least there would be an offset to the harm that the non-pilot employees at Delta would cause –maybe one that is even more beneficial to Delta—right?
Why did you not factor this possibility in your equation, or did you just ignore it?
2.) DELTA AIR LINES WILL BE FINANCIALLY RUINED IF THEY AGREE TO INCREASE OUR CONTRACT BY SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT- SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN’T AFFORD IT.
It seems as though your “two bites” side says that Delta simply can’t afford a $2 billion increase in pilot costs right now. But, on the other hand, you guys are more than willing to leap-frog what American pilots get, after they get it. In fact, many of you say you hope that they get full restoration, so we can pattern bargain. But, what if American’s management decides to jump off the cliff and give their pilots what they want, knowing they can’t afford it? How, in your mind, does that change anything at Delta? It seems to me that if you can’t afford a $2 billion dollar increase in cost, you can’t afford a $2 billion dollar increase in costs, no matter what American does.
Forget about the fact that, if you assume that the increased cost will ruin Delta, you also have to assume that the increased cost will ruin American first. Also, forget about the possibility of United pilots deciding to say at their current United side pay-rates. But, focus on your statements that the good credit ratings you say the company needs for aircraft financing will disappear. Do they not still disappear if both pilot groups ask for and get full restoration?
Either way, for you and others to base your negotiating starting point on what American gets defeats what seems to be one of your goals: Take small bites so Delta can survive. For you and others to say, we’ll ask for the $2 billion only when American gets restoration, shows me that, 1.) You don’t really want American pilots to get full restoration, or 2.) You secretly think that Delta can find a way to afford full restoration, or 3.) You haven’t really thought your argument through.
3.) DELTA AIRLINES WILL EXTEND NEGOTIATIONS IF WE ASK FOR TOO MUCH.
Finally, it seems that for your argument to work you need Delta Air Lines and their negotiators to have a vengeful personality where they would view an opening by us, that attempted to achieve restoration, as some type of personal insult which would send us down a slippery path to a management vs. pilot war that we could never return from. That is debatable. I would think that if we determined that the economic environment required us to back down from an opener where we asked for restoration, and we did so, Delta would be all for it.
But, either way, I believe your desire to ask for little bites and therefore take two bites at the apple is flawed. At the very least, my way is better than yours. Why? Because, with your way, once you start down the little bite path, there is no going back. If you open by asking for a little bite, you cannot come back during the negotiations and ask for a big bite later. That’s called negotiating in bad faith. If we tried to go back and ask for restoration after we opened with asking for a small bite, there is not an arbitrator, mediator, judge or jury in the land who would see our new strategy as being fair to Delta. With my way, we can always retreat to whatever your position is for whatever reason, with no repercussion.
Now, to me, it doesn’t seem that any of the above mentioned arguments you guys have against us asking for what we want hold any water. I have stated that I at least want to stand behind the American pilots and United pilots at this time, by letting their management teams know that we will not undercut them or settle for less than what they get. I have also stated that I want to let Delta Air Lines do their job. If the Delta pilot group thinks they deserve restoration, then it’s up to Delta to figure out how to pay it, explain why they can’t, or try to convince me that I’m not worth it. When we took those huge paycuts earlier this decade to save the company, NWA didn’t ask us how we would manage, we just voted them in and all pilots had to deal with it. I still don’t make what I made in 2001, but I dealt with it. Now, it’s time to ask Delta for restoration. I want to give them the chance to deal with it. Nothing should stop us from asking the question.
Unfortunately, it seems that some of you seem to think that is your job and/or the job of DALPA to tell us that we shouldn’t even ask. I cannot disagree with that position more strongly. It’s never a union’s job to make excuses for the company. They hire people to do that; I shouldn’t have to pay dues for the privilege.
I’m sure you and others will point out some misstatement or misconception I have about something or another, but it won’t change the bottom line.
Now, your "two bites at the apple" side (You, pineapple, acl, et al.) have given several reasons why you believe pursuing this course wouldn't be prudent:
1.) OUR FELLOW EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE SUCH AN ADVERSE REACTION THAT THEY IN TURN WILL TAKE IT OUT ON THE CUSTOMERS AND THEREFORE FINANCIALLY RUIN DELTA.
Even though this is pure speculation, I’m going to let it pass. Let’s say that the other Delta employees will be upset that we get paid so much and total mayhem ensues, which causes disruption at Delta. But Sailing, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. We don’t live in a vacuum. If you assume that Delta employees would have an adverse reaction to our huge pay raises, then you MUST assume that the pilots of Deltas competitor airlines would have the same reaction. Yes. You must assume that the pilots at American, United, Us Airways, and whoever else, would be just as ****ed as the Delta employees if we got raises and you must assume that they would do just as much to harm their airline as Delta employees would harm Delta. So, at the very least there would be an offset to the harm that the non-pilot employees at Delta would cause –maybe one that is even more beneficial to Delta—right?
Why did you not factor this possibility in your equation, or did you just ignore it?
2.) DELTA AIR LINES WILL BE FINANCIALLY RUINED IF THEY AGREE TO INCREASE OUR CONTRACT BY SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT- SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN’T AFFORD IT.
It seems as though your “two bites” side says that Delta simply can’t afford a $2 billion increase in pilot costs right now. But, on the other hand, you guys are more than willing to leap-frog what American pilots get, after they get it. In fact, many of you say you hope that they get full restoration, so we can pattern bargain. But, what if American’s management decides to jump off the cliff and give their pilots what they want, knowing they can’t afford it? How, in your mind, does that change anything at Delta? It seems to me that if you can’t afford a $2 billion dollar increase in cost, you can’t afford a $2 billion dollar increase in costs, no matter what American does.
Forget about the fact that, if you assume that the increased cost will ruin Delta, you also have to assume that the increased cost will ruin American first. Also, forget about the possibility of United pilots deciding to say at their current United side pay-rates. But, focus on your statements that the good credit ratings you say the company needs for aircraft financing will disappear. Do they not still disappear if both pilot groups ask for and get full restoration?
Either way, for you and others to base your negotiating starting point on what American gets defeats what seems to be one of your goals: Take small bites so Delta can survive. For you and others to say, we’ll ask for the $2 billion only when American gets restoration, shows me that, 1.) You don’t really want American pilots to get full restoration, or 2.) You secretly think that Delta can find a way to afford full restoration, or 3.) You haven’t really thought your argument through.
3.) DELTA AIRLINES WILL EXTEND NEGOTIATIONS IF WE ASK FOR TOO MUCH.
Finally, it seems that for your argument to work you need Delta Air Lines and their negotiators to have a vengeful personality where they would view an opening by us, that attempted to achieve restoration, as some type of personal insult which would send us down a slippery path to a management vs. pilot war that we could never return from. That is debatable. I would think that if we determined that the economic environment required us to back down from an opener where we asked for restoration, and we did so, Delta would be all for it.
But, either way, I believe your desire to ask for little bites and therefore take two bites at the apple is flawed. At the very least, my way is better than yours. Why? Because, with your way, once you start down the little bite path, there is no going back. If you open by asking for a little bite, you cannot come back during the negotiations and ask for a big bite later. That’s called negotiating in bad faith. If we tried to go back and ask for restoration after we opened with asking for a small bite, there is not an arbitrator, mediator, judge or jury in the land who would see our new strategy as being fair to Delta. With my way, we can always retreat to whatever your position is for whatever reason, with no repercussion.
Now, to me, it doesn’t seem that any of the above mentioned arguments you guys have against us asking for what we want hold any water. I have stated that I at least want to stand behind the American pilots and United pilots at this time, by letting their management teams know that we will not undercut them or settle for less than what they get. I have also stated that I want to let Delta Air Lines do their job. If the Delta pilot group thinks they deserve restoration, then it’s up to Delta to figure out how to pay it, explain why they can’t, or try to convince me that I’m not worth it. When we took those huge paycuts earlier this decade to save the company, NWA didn’t ask us how we would manage, we just voted them in and all pilots had to deal with it. I still don’t make what I made in 2001, but I dealt with it. Now, it’s time to ask Delta for restoration. I want to give them the chance to deal with it. Nothing should stop us from asking the question.
Unfortunately, it seems that some of you seem to think that is your job and/or the job of DALPA to tell us that we shouldn’t even ask. I cannot disagree with that position more strongly. It’s never a union’s job to make excuses for the company. They hire people to do that; I shouldn’t have to pay dues for the privilege.
I’m sure you and others will point out some misstatement or misconception I have about something or another, but it won’t change the bottom line.
12-06-2010, 05:55 PM
#3323
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
I guess I could turn the question around. What factor has more to do with the current price of your house:
1. What your neighbors are getting?
2. What your house cost (inflation adjusted) 30 years ago?
So yes I am saying that American pilots are asking for too much. How else can you describe it when the NMB tells them to get a clue and then walks away? Tell me what is the end game for the APA when they are not even negotiating? How exactly do you see this panning out? I am seriously looking for answers, because in the world I live in, you don't get a pay raise when you aren't even negotiating.
I have never held that the other contracts are entirely dispositive of what we can get. Certainly we are not going into LCC territory. But if AMR gets a raise and UAL gets a raise it can't hurt. If they stay stuck on the sidelines, then it makes our job just that much harder.
As for your rather long post, the second one, I don't blame you but you don't really seem to understand the negotiating process. I don't understand the talk about the non-contract employees so I will just leave it. The second point is about the company affording a raise. The economics of the parent company are closely tied to employee compensation and if you don't believe that then you need to study your history a little. Now, what the company can afford and what they say they can afford are two different things. That is why we have professional economists from ALPA National and why we usually hire investment bankers to help determine what they really can afford and not what they claim they can afford.
On the third point, companies generally try to extend the negotiating process when they are making hay as they lose leverage. Conversely, labor tries to drag things out when things are bleaker because they lose leverage. The real length of negotiations can be determined mostly by the NMB and when they release you for self help. That is when the rubber hits the road. The NMB will not release you if there is little hope that the 30 day cooling off period or a short strike will resolve the differences.
By law, they are required to act to try to keep the planes moving, not shut them down. In the case of AMR, the APA ask is so high in relation to the finances of AMR (which is losing money this year) that there is no hope of a strike resolving the situation, unless the APA secretly has a plan B of asking for a lot less. That is why the NMB said they are no longer wasting their time with this negotiation unless the APA makes some changes. You can complain about that all you want, but this is the railway labor act, I didn't write and I don't like it, but I am just a pilot and I can't really do anything about it.
As for the public statements, they are pretty much worthless. Any management type knows the recent history and they know pilots are upset. Making some public declaration of support is not very useful. However, ALPA is providing their leading expertise in economic analysis and negotiating strategy (for a price) to the APA to help them move the ball down the field. UAL has the full support of ALPA and has received authorization from the contingency fund to ensure that they have enough resources to make it through their negotiations. That is the power that comes from a large unified organization and not a bunch of little independent fiefdoms.
On a side note, it is quite common to back track on negotiations when situations change. So yes, you can ask for a little and then ask for more later. They will complain about it, but tough toenails.
I feel that we are going around and around here, and maybe there will be no meeting of the minds. Arguments like "well we used to make that" or "we need to be able to buy a car a month" will not win any points with the NMB or anyone else involved. They really are emotional arguments devoid of business analysis. The world changes and nothing stays the same.
I have done a great deal of union work simply because I wanted to be part of the solution and not sit on the sidelines. We all do our part, but in the end there are real limits in the world. If you push back two hours late for your DTW-LGA flight, you will try to make up time. However, you are going to be late no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how badly you want it. We live in a world with limits.
1. What your neighbors are getting?
2. What your house cost (inflation adjusted) 30 years ago?
So yes I am saying that American pilots are asking for too much. How else can you describe it when the NMB tells them to get a clue and then walks away? Tell me what is the end game for the APA when they are not even negotiating? How exactly do you see this panning out? I am seriously looking for answers, because in the world I live in, you don't get a pay raise when you aren't even negotiating.
I have never held that the other contracts are entirely dispositive of what we can get. Certainly we are not going into LCC territory. But if AMR gets a raise and UAL gets a raise it can't hurt. If they stay stuck on the sidelines, then it makes our job just that much harder.
As for your rather long post, the second one, I don't blame you but you don't really seem to understand the negotiating process. I don't understand the talk about the non-contract employees so I will just leave it. The second point is about the company affording a raise. The economics of the parent company are closely tied to employee compensation and if you don't believe that then you need to study your history a little. Now, what the company can afford and what they say they can afford are two different things. That is why we have professional economists from ALPA National and why we usually hire investment bankers to help determine what they really can afford and not what they claim they can afford.
On the third point, companies generally try to extend the negotiating process when they are making hay as they lose leverage. Conversely, labor tries to drag things out when things are bleaker because they lose leverage. The real length of negotiations can be determined mostly by the NMB and when they release you for self help. That is when the rubber hits the road. The NMB will not release you if there is little hope that the 30 day cooling off period or a short strike will resolve the differences.
By law, they are required to act to try to keep the planes moving, not shut them down. In the case of AMR, the APA ask is so high in relation to the finances of AMR (which is losing money this year) that there is no hope of a strike resolving the situation, unless the APA secretly has a plan B of asking for a lot less. That is why the NMB said they are no longer wasting their time with this negotiation unless the APA makes some changes. You can complain about that all you want, but this is the railway labor act, I didn't write and I don't like it, but I am just a pilot and I can't really do anything about it.
As for the public statements, they are pretty much worthless. Any management type knows the recent history and they know pilots are upset. Making some public declaration of support is not very useful. However, ALPA is providing their leading expertise in economic analysis and negotiating strategy (for a price) to the APA to help them move the ball down the field. UAL has the full support of ALPA and has received authorization from the contingency fund to ensure that they have enough resources to make it through their negotiations. That is the power that comes from a large unified organization and not a bunch of little independent fiefdoms.
On a side note, it is quite common to back track on negotiations when situations change. So yes, you can ask for a little and then ask for more later. They will complain about it, but tough toenails.
I feel that we are going around and around here, and maybe there will be no meeting of the minds. Arguments like "well we used to make that" or "we need to be able to buy a car a month" will not win any points with the NMB or anyone else involved. They really are emotional arguments devoid of business analysis. The world changes and nothing stays the same.
I have done a great deal of union work simply because I wanted to be part of the solution and not sit on the sidelines. We all do our part, but in the end there are real limits in the world. If you push back two hours late for your DTW-LGA flight, you will try to make up time. However, you are going to be late no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how badly you want it. We live in a world with limits.
12-06-2010, 06:44 PM
#3324
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Thankfully, we live in a world that includes people with creativity, vision, and spirit who strive for excellence and find new limits and new ways to overcome adversity. Otherwise, we would all still be sitting in caves debating whether there's any practical application for that whole fire thing.
Especially right now, I don't think we need people representing us that look at our situation and only see limits.
Especially right now, I don't think we need people representing us that look at our situation and only see limits.
12-06-2010, 08:22 PM
#3325
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,903
Thankfully, we live in a world that includes people with creativity, vision, and spirit who strive for excellence and find new limits and new ways to overcome adversity. Otherwise, we would all still be sitting in caves debating whether there's any practical application for that whole fire thing.
Especially right now, I don't think we need people representing us that look at our situation and only see limits.
Especially right now, I don't think we need people representing us that look at our situation and only see limits.
Nu
PS and on, and on....
12-06-2010, 09:18 PM
#3326
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
What if my house is better then my neighbors? You know, like it's a historical landmark or something, and my neighbors live in the projects.
What if the buyer really want's my house because he needs to move quickly and my house fits his specific need. You know, like it's right down the street from his new job.
If I low-ball myself in my initial offer, the buyer isn't going to come out and say, "Hey. I was going to pay more. Here's the extra cash on top of what you listed it for." He's going to say, "That big dummy sure did sell himself short. Let's go to the steakhouse!"
New K Now
I just did some thread history and I think I addressed many of your questions and points on page 289, 302, and 303. No?
Last edited by newKnow; 12-06-2010 at 09:37 PM.
12-06-2010, 09:53 PM
#3327
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Thankfully, we live in a world that includes people with creativity, vision, and spirit who strive for excellence and find new limits and new ways to overcome adversity. Otherwise, we would all still be sitting in caves debating whether there's any practical application for that whole fire thing.
Especially right now, I don't think we need people representing us that look at our situation and only see limits.
Especially right now, I don't think we need people representing us that look at our situation and only see limits.
"Do you think we should ask for fire?"
"I don't know. If we ask, God might get mad at us."
"But, He gave it to us already."
"Yes. But, He can't afford to give it to us again. Market forces, you know."
"How do you know He can't afford it? I've heard He's pretty creative."
"Look. Even if He did give it to us, we don't want it. If we got it, God's other creatures would be so jealous of us, they would destroy the world."
"So, we should wait until the bears get it?"
"Yup."
"Humm......"
12-06-2010, 10:09 PM
#3328
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
I guess I could turn the question around. What factor has more to do with the current price of your house:
1. What your neighbors are getting?
2. What your house cost (inflation adjusted) 30 years ago?
So yes I am saying that American pilots are asking for too much. How else can you describe it when the NMB tells them to get a clue and then walks away? Tell me what is the end game for the APA when they are not even negotiating? How exactly do you see this panning out? I am seriously looking for answers, because in the world I live in, you don't get a pay raise when you aren't even negotiating.
I have never held that the other contracts are entirely dispositive of what we can get. Certainly we are not going into LCC territory. But if AMR gets a raise and UAL gets a raise it can't hurt. If they stay stuck on the sidelines, then it makes our job just that much harder.
As for your rather long post, the second one, I don't blame you but you don't really seem to understand the negotiating process. I don't understand the talk about the non-contract employees so I will just leave it. The second point is about the company affording a raise. The economics of the parent company are closely tied to employee compensation and if you don't believe that then you need to study your history a little. Now, what the company can afford and what they say they can afford are two different things. That is why we have professional economists from ALPA National and why we usually hire investment bankers to help determine what they really can afford and not what they claim they can afford.
On the third point, companies generally try to extend the negotiating process when they are making hay as they lose leverage. Conversely, labor tries to drag things out when things are bleaker because they lose leverage. The real length of negotiations can be determined mostly by the NMB and when they release you for self help. That is when the rubber hits the road. The NMB will not release you if there is little hope that the 30 day cooling off period or a short strike will resolve the differences.
By law, they are required to act to try to keep the planes moving, not shut them down. In the case of AMR, the APA ask is so high in relation to the finances of AMR (which is losing money this year) that there is no hope of a strike resolving the situation, unless the APA secretly has a plan B of asking for a lot less. That is why the NMB said they are no longer wasting their time with this negotiation unless the APA makes some changes. You can complain about that all you want, but this is the railway labor act, I didn't write and I don't like it, but I am just a pilot and I can't really do anything about it.
As for the public statements, they are pretty much worthless. Any management type knows the recent history and they know pilots are upset. Making some public declaration of support is not very useful. However, ALPA is providing their leading expertise in economic analysis and negotiating strategy (for a price) to the APA to help them move the ball down the field. UAL has the full support of ALPA and has received authorization from the contingency fund to ensure that they have enough resources to make it through their negotiations. That is the power that comes from a large unified organization and not a bunch of little independent fiefdoms.
On a side note, it is quite common to back track on negotiations when situations change. So yes, you can ask for a little and then ask for more later. They will complain about it, but tough toenails.
I feel that we are going around and around here, and maybe there will be no meeting of the minds. Arguments like "well we used to make that" or "we need to be able to buy a car a month" will not win any points with the NMB or anyone else involved. They really are emotional arguments devoid of business analysis. The world changes and nothing stays the same.
I have done a great deal of union work simply because I wanted to be part of the solution and not sit on the sidelines. We all do our part, but in the end there are real limits in the world. If you push back two hours late for your DTW-LGA flight, you will try to make up time. However, you are going to be late no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how badly you want it. We live in a world with limits.
1. What your neighbors are getting?
2. What your house cost (inflation adjusted) 30 years ago?
So yes I am saying that American pilots are asking for too much. How else can you describe it when the NMB tells them to get a clue and then walks away? Tell me what is the end game for the APA when they are not even negotiating? How exactly do you see this panning out? I am seriously looking for answers, because in the world I live in, you don't get a pay raise when you aren't even negotiating.
I have never held that the other contracts are entirely dispositive of what we can get. Certainly we are not going into LCC territory. But if AMR gets a raise and UAL gets a raise it can't hurt. If they stay stuck on the sidelines, then it makes our job just that much harder.
As for your rather long post, the second one, I don't blame you but you don't really seem to understand the negotiating process. I don't understand the talk about the non-contract employees so I will just leave it. The second point is about the company affording a raise. The economics of the parent company are closely tied to employee compensation and if you don't believe that then you need to study your history a little. Now, what the company can afford and what they say they can afford are two different things. That is why we have professional economists from ALPA National and why we usually hire investment bankers to help determine what they really can afford and not what they claim they can afford.
On the third point, companies generally try to extend the negotiating process when they are making hay as they lose leverage. Conversely, labor tries to drag things out when things are bleaker because they lose leverage. The real length of negotiations can be determined mostly by the NMB and when they release you for self help. That is when the rubber hits the road. The NMB will not release you if there is little hope that the 30 day cooling off period or a short strike will resolve the differences.
By law, they are required to act to try to keep the planes moving, not shut them down. In the case of AMR, the APA ask is so high in relation to the finances of AMR (which is losing money this year) that there is no hope of a strike resolving the situation, unless the APA secretly has a plan B of asking for a lot less. That is why the NMB said they are no longer wasting their time with this negotiation unless the APA makes some changes. You can complain about that all you want, but this is the railway labor act, I didn't write and I don't like it, but I am just a pilot and I can't really do anything about it.
As for the public statements, they are pretty much worthless. Any management type knows the recent history and they know pilots are upset. Making some public declaration of support is not very useful. However, ALPA is providing their leading expertise in economic analysis and negotiating strategy (for a price) to the APA to help them move the ball down the field. UAL has the full support of ALPA and has received authorization from the contingency fund to ensure that they have enough resources to make it through their negotiations. That is the power that comes from a large unified organization and not a bunch of little independent fiefdoms.
On a side note, it is quite common to back track on negotiations when situations change. So yes, you can ask for a little and then ask for more later. They will complain about it, but tough toenails.
I feel that we are going around and around here, and maybe there will be no meeting of the minds. Arguments like "well we used to make that" or "we need to be able to buy a car a month" will not win any points with the NMB or anyone else involved. They really are emotional arguments devoid of business analysis. The world changes and nothing stays the same.
I have done a great deal of union work simply because I wanted to be part of the solution and not sit on the sidelines. We all do our part, but in the end there are real limits in the world. If you push back two hours late for your DTW-LGA flight, you will try to make up time. However, you are going to be late no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how badly you want it. We live in a world with limits.
For the record your comment "it is quite common to back track on negotiations when situations change. So yes, you can ask for a little and then ask for more later" is misguided at best and foolhardy and ineffective at worst. Please tell me you are not on the negotiating committee!
12-07-2010, 01:48 AM
#3329
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
As I've said repeatedly: ask for XX and get 50% of it, or ask for XXXX and get zilch. 50% of something puts MORE money in my pocket than 0% of 3x something.
12-07-2010, 04:37 AM
#3330
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
"Do you think we should ask for fire?"
"I don't know. If we ask, God might get mad at us."
"But, He gave it to us already."
"Yes. But, He can't afford to give it to us again. Market forces, you know."
"How do you know He can't afford it? I've heard He's pretty creative."
"Look. Even if He did give it to us, we don't want it. If we got it, God's other creatures would be so jealous of us, they would destroy the world."
"So, we should wait until the bears get it?"
"Yup."
"Humm......"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
