ThumbsUp

C’mon man. That’s your dues pay for.

EWRflyr

I'm the problem because I have a different view of the solution despite being a NO voter? If you say so, "dude."

Reps have been comfy in their union jobs? Surely you don't mean the line flying representatives who fly just like the rest of us, plus have to work more than us on layovers, days off, weekends, nights. When they land and turn their phones on the other part of their job begins. Nope, doesn't exactly sound cushy to me.

Here's the thing about a concessionary TA: it's in the eyes of the beholder. As stated previously, I'm a NO voter because of one particular provision in there. I'm a realist that negotiations are give and take. We are NOT going to get everything we want. Period. Many of you need to start saying that to yourselves and accept that a NEGOTIATION means both sides have wants but both sides will have to give. There are lots of things I want to see in the contract but I know I'm not going to get the contract I really want to see. 14,000 pilots may have differing opinions on what the end contract should look like and they all might look completely different in the end. If every TA is a concession then we will never have a contract that satisfies even 50% +1. Even in the best of times the company is going to expect a give in some areas they find have not benefited them.

I do not have wool over my eyes or hiding my head in the sand. This TA is not popular for sure. However, I think throwing out the negotiators (who take direction from the MEC) as well as the majority of the reps will set negotiations back far longer than most on here are willing to admit or are aware. This is not a quick ramp up to negotiate again after a failed TA, recall, polling, etc. Once that all settles out and we sit down with the company again will we be in the midst of a recession? I'm not saying that as a talking point or scare tactic. It's an economic reality of where we are and the timing. The company wants to try to get a new deal done. I'd rather that happen as quickly as possible to lock in something before the economy possibly goes off a cliff. Because once it does, I wouldn't blame management for saying, "sorry, we will have to postpone talks until we have a better picture again of the economic outlook and travel demand." Sure, ramp up the SPSC and picketing if they do. Fact of the matter is, the RLA is on management's side. I personally don't feel like living under this contract for another 2 years at minimum before we see another deal under all new leadership and negotiators. Upset there isn't "full retro" now, just wait until you don't get another 2 years of full retro on top of that.

EWRflyr

I was always told it was for the magazine. Guess I shouldn't believe everything posted on the internet.

TodKindrsChikun

Sure.

I’m fully aware the LECs aren’t on FTFPL.

Chowdah

All due respect, if you think we have an adversarial relationship with our management, you’re creating a narrative that doesn’t align with reality. Our end goals are as aligned as they can be, given SK’s masters (BoD, Wall Street, wokestan, etc)

A good general takes a lot of time to understand the battle they face and tailors a strategy to it. Point being, our approach today should look pretty difference than the summer of love. And the way we work with BQ, TE, SK etc is probably pretty different than Tilton, Smisek, etc

It kind of feels like a fair amount of folks never got closure on the lost decade and are looking to take a swing at mother U for all the harm that was done. Most of us have had to learn that if we hold on to that pain/anger, we’re going to be fighting phantoms

oldmako

And I submit that your version of reality doesn't align with our history.

DodgerBlue

No pain, no anger, but there is an account that needs to be settled.

Everyone is getting paid, but us and for some reason, we choose to accept that.

It’s time take a different direction.

fadec

Sometimes someone must be the adversary. When we accept a fixed pie to divide it up amongst ourselves, who then is our adversary? Our union has kept good relations with management at the expense of turning pilot against pilot. This TA was a wake-up call. We're working together now for solid gains and reparations across the board. If the company wants to be our adversary that's their choice not ours. We can't choose to be allies with someone who isn't also willing.

Chowdah

I think you guys have been watching too many superhero movies. The real world doesn’t break down like that. You can make onerous demands on someone/something you have a great relationship with. I think the initial sticker shock would be frustrating to this management team, they did not cause the severe pain we felt in the 2000s, but I would simply state that we have some catching up to do and this is our opportunity. Again, I’d be very genuine and say that I completely understand their desire to not spend more than they have to, but unfortunately this is going to be one of the situations where they need to open the checkbook. I say the same thing to clients in my outside business

If it was me, I would walk in there with a smile on my face and tell them we need a minimum of 15% raises on date of signing, retro to the beginning of the year. And 5% for 2023 and 2024.

There are a lot of good provisions in the current TA, despite the obvious desire by many to highlight its shortcomings. Keep the stuff we like, remove
- any changes to scope
- instructor scope
- landings program
- reassignment order
- either keep the early reserve show on day one and reduce reserve days to 16 a month, or go back to the old system, Albeit codified to reflect the 117 rules and keep the add pay.
- remove all the check airman discretionary add pay, add a minimum override of 25% for November, December and May through August

20% retirement contributions for year one through five, 18% five through 10, 16% thereafter.

Employee paid, company subsidized:
- Short term disability plans
- long-term disability plans that ensure income stays constant (as a business owner myself, I do not think it is reasonable to ask there to be zero change in employee lifestyle to go out on disability. I sure hope those who disagree with me, have not made any disparaging comments about the government and their hand in labor reemployment reluctance post COVID. I definitely want there to be a safety net for us older guys, but you gotta put some skin in the game, otherwise I don’t think it’s worth taking capital from other areas of the contract).


I personally think it’s simple. You say that we want the company to thrive as much as they do, probably more, given that most of us will be here while after this management team leaves. That said, there has been a general decline in take home pay/lifestyle in our profession in the last 30 years and this is one of the rare times we see the opportunity to take back ground. The giant asterisk on all of this however, is that part of the union/company relationship where the company takes greatly during recessions, is fueled by our desire to take greatly when we have leverage. I am not really sure that asking for the moon, and getting it will be completely positive for us 15 years from now, but obviously this is not the time to leave money on the table.

To me, the above proposal seems very reasonable… I understand it is less than some thing we should strive for, and obviously more than the current union leader ship believes we can get. I hope our current leadership has seen the light and will act accordingly, or they can find some pilots to step up and Help negotiate what we need

GPullR

Wait,u want to increase the retirements for the people who are making 200k on year 2 and not help the ones who were double furloughs or lost their pensions??