waterskisabersw

The RLA favors the side that is more informed and knowledgeable than the other. Nothing against the RAH or Pinnacle (or other examples of extreme extended negotiations), but having a transient work group, negotiating team, and union leadership group, combined with the facts that regional pilots are generally less experienced and less well-funded than their major airline peers does not bode well for navigating the careful path a union must take in order to secure a release.

Looking at the majors is much more appropriate. Two recent examples of protracted negotiations are Atlas and Spirit. Both involved examples of high turn over and alleged illegal job actions, among other things, which were used to inflate the meditation timeline.

Spirit ended up getting released (a feat not accomplished by RAH or 9E), while atlas bafflingly went to arbitration.

For your last part, political flavors do change. Both RAH and 9E had the majority of their negotiations under one administration, for whatever that's worth. Secondly, the political favor shown towards SWA right now is decidedly negative. We have few friends on Wallstreet, Capitol Hill, or the media.

Lewbronski

Waterski once again said it well WRT Republic.

Here's a post I made about a month ago about mediation time and why some unions end up staying in mediation for way longer than they need to.

waterskisabersw

An excellent post. Alas, I mistakenly confused ABX and Atlas in my head when I wrote my earlier post, though Atlas is another, lesser, example of protracted negotiations.

I think it bears saying that the best thing SWAPA and its constituents can drive for is a contract. We need to fight for that through the best legal means available to us. We need to use the levers of the RLA to our advantage.

We need to show the NMB that the best and fastest way to a ratifiable contract, and thus the outcome with the least impact on interstate commerce, is through a legal release to self help.

hoover

I'm not a mathematician but I dont think there will be enough gummers to keep up with the demand if that passes. I'd say fewer than 1% will stay that long

waterskisabersw

The most clear and present danger of age 67 is not reduced retirements from SWA, but rather reduced retirements from the other majors.

When the biggest leak in the boat is plugged, all small leaks become less critical.

chrisreedrules

Age 67 is far from a sure thing. It was passed in the House version of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. It is not in the Senate’s version. Once the Senate passes a version (likely sometime in September when they return from recess) then they will reconcile the bill with the House’s and send it to the President to sign. The DOT Secretary and the POTUS have come out publicly against raising the mandatory retirement age to 67. Additionally, there has been ground gained by ALPA in their behind the scenes lobbying in D.C. explaining the potential downsides to age 67 that many weren’t aware of.

ICAO has indicated that they aren’t considering it for another 3-5 years at best. I’m not sure where the rumor started, or if it was a simple misunderstanding, but ICAO is not “debating” or otherwise “voting on” age 67 come this August. That is false. It would be an additional 9-12 months before ICAO would even meet to discuss it in any meaningful capacity.

So I doubt very seriously that your management is planning on age 67. It will create a lot of chaos for the legacies if it comes to guys hitting 65 and having to go back to fly domestic-only if they choose to stick around. There would likely be hundreds of displacements, tens of millions spent, etc etc… The whole thing would be a giant mess. But it’s a mess 12-18 months from now (if it even happens), not immediately. There will be implementation schedules etc. Perhaps they pass it in the final version of the bill “pending a 2-year study”. We don’t know yet what will happen.

mulcher

our retirement numbers are anemic the next two years compared to what they want to hire. They wouldn’t even cover attrition.

Captains retiring
within 12 months - 112
within 2 years - 248
within 3 years - 471
within 5 years - 960

FOs retiring
within 12 months - 1
within 2 years - 6
within 3 years - 11
within 5 years - 24

sailingfun

- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.

17. Q: How long does mediation last?
A: There is no time limit for the mediation process. It can take just a few meetings, or it can take many months, depending upon the complexity of the negotiations and many other factors unique to each contract negotiation. The NMB has the authority to decide when and if to end mediation.

Q: How long will mediation last?
There is no set timeframe for NMB mediation. Some cases have lasted weeks, others years. The mediator and the Board have substantial discretion with regards to how long to continue their mediation efforts. Under the Railway Labor Act, the NMB ceases mediation efforts when it concludes that all reasonable efforts to reach a voluntary agreement through mediation have failed.

waterskisabersw

Excellent! So when asked to cite something in the actual law or case law, and you quote (without citing) an ALPA FAQ that doesn't actually say what you're claiming.

Seems legit.

Mozam

You are all over the place about it passing or not passing. I am confused as to which side you are taking bets on .