The Current Negotiating Environment
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Concessionary is a little strong of word. Being that each of these deals increased pilot costs as a whole, and that we have all truly been affected by concessionary deals the past ten years. I think it is a stretch. Now I agree that they have not raised the bar high enough.
#12
(retired)
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
I highly doubt all 65% of the DAL pilots that voted "no" think it was a concessionary contract. I am pretty confident at least one or two voters thought it was just not enough gains to vote for it.
I will repeat myself again. A concessionary contract and a contract that does not provide enough gains are two totally different things.
I will repeat myself again. A concessionary contract and a contract that does not provide enough gains are two totally different things.
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Position: EWR 777 FO
Posts: 187
I highly doubt all 65% of the DAL pilots that voted "no" think it was a concessionary contract. I am pretty confident at least one or two voters thought it was just not enough gains to vote for it.
I will repeat myself again. A concessionary contract and a contract that does not provide enough gains are two totally different things.
I will repeat myself again. A concessionary contract and a contract that does not provide enough gains are two totally different things.
It was concessionary in the work rule department. No debating that.
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
It was concessionary in the work rule department. No debating that.
Please enlighten us about this.
I love the "non" vote. To me it just seemed a bit too convenient and cozy for such an easy tentative agreement. But I have no idea what was in the non contract offer.
Please enlighten us about this.
I love the "non" vote. To me it just seemed a bit too convenient and cozy for such an easy tentative agreement. But I have no idea what was in the non contract offer.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
How do you define "concessionary?"
If you mean that each and every section and paragraph of the contract doesn't show improvements and some even show some reductions, then every contract in my almost 38 years has been concessionary.
What do you want?
Money, duty rigs, commuting ease, base availability, easy reserve (no short calls), or what?
Everything has a price and to broadly call something "concessionary" is being intellectually dishonest (and a bit hyperbolic).
If there were "good old" days in this industry would someone please let me know when that was. It's been a fight with management for the whole time I've been at UAL, so I don't know what some seem to expect.
If you mean that each and every section and paragraph of the contract doesn't show improvements and some even show some reductions, then every contract in my almost 38 years has been concessionary.
What do you want?
Money, duty rigs, commuting ease, base availability, easy reserve (no short calls), or what?
Everything has a price and to broadly call something "concessionary" is being intellectually dishonest (and a bit hyperbolic).
If there were "good old" days in this industry would someone please let me know when that was. It's been a fight with management for the whole time I've been at UAL, so I don't know what some seem to expect.
First, the Delta deal...
65% of their pilots voted no. Thank God!!! They got decent, not great pay scales and a 1% increase in their DC plan (woo hoo). The cost was a haircut on profit sharing, JV language that was a serious threat to their career progression and job security, and a draconian sick policy. I viewed this deal as a loss of ground, not an overall gain.
Second, the FedEx deal...
The only thing that I can see that is really not acceptable is their retirement proposal. No changes to the "A" fund which means that because of adjustments for inflation means that what they get upon their retirement will not have that much buying power (especially for pilots getting hired now and retiring in 20-30 years). A low (I think about 9%) B fund. Industry standard is 16%.
Third the SWA deal...
Huge cave in scope! They not only let the camel nose into the tent, they let the whole camel in the tent with scope. Not only that, but they have a proposal of a 10% MATCH for their retirement. Industry standard is a DC plan with a 16% contribution.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Third the SWA deal...
Huge cave in scope! They not only let the camel nose into the tent, they let the whole camel in the tent with scope. Not only that, but they have a proposal of a 10% MATCH for their retirement. Industry standard is a DC plan with a 16% contribution.
Huge cave in scope! They not only let the camel nose into the tent, they let the whole camel in the tent with scope. Not only that, but they have a proposal of a 10% MATCH for their retirement. Industry standard is a DC plan with a 16% contribution.
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
I am a bit confused by this. Who would SWA code-share or partner with to take advantage of the scope cave? SWA is both a regional and a big airline. Not understanding why SWA management would want to farm out flying to cheaper labor when SW pilots are already so efficient and productive.
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
I see. But they can't do the flying cuz they only have guppies. I guess if they want to provide the feed for the lunar shuttle service to the dark side of the moon then good for them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post