No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[Tarzan]

I don’t know how many times I have to say this but, No we will not be “in a better negotiating position” if we give away our only leverage.

There isn't that much money in this gig for the company. Some guys seem to think there will be tens of millions saved. Sorry but it ain't happening. There isn't as much leverage there as you seem to believe. The reason why we see this as more leverage now is because the union has NO legal compunction to bring this to a vote or even negotiate in good faith. If the company wanted a vote, they had to give and give they did. Under Sec 6, there has to be a GOOD FAITH effort made and a vote will be held eventually. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. Now, we don't have to do a dang thing. Then, we are required to. You dig?

 

[GeekMaster]

I don’t know how many times I have to say this but, No we will not be “in a better negotiating position” if we give away our only leverage. I admit I don’t know everything about contract negotiations, and the union officials will try to intimidate by saying “you don’t understand section 6 negotiations” but I’m not convinced that if the company wants this badly we can’t use it as leverage. I don’t think it would be an awful thing if PBS disappeared but that is not going to happen. Management has wanted it for years. They are not going to just give up but we can at least sweeten the deal by getting a quick section 6 this time. Again if we give this to them we are setting ourselves up for years of contract negotiations and shrinking to profitability.

I understand the point you are trying to argue; truly I do. What many on this board are trying to rightfully point out is that it's an extremely flawed argument. If I understand you correctly, you have already acknowledged that this LOA may very well be a good one. You further argue that we should reject it no matter whether it's the best in the industry or not so that we can hold it for ransom in the upcoming section 6. Is that correct?

Ok, here are the primary reasons that argument is flawed.

1. The agreement itself contains an accelerated timetable for negotiations with leverage PRE-BUILT in. If an agreement isn't reached in a given period of time BOTH MUST APPLY FOR MEDIATION. No stalling.

2. If this is rejected, it is thrown completely out the window when section 6 starts in May. There WILL BE NO MEDIATOR for as long as they can possibly get their high dollar lawyers to stall.

3. Since we've kicked them in the twins and given them the finger over their industry leading PBS offer and basically told them we don't want to be a part of their long term strategy, they can once again start transferring up to 5 aircraft per year without violating the contract. Yes I said again, they transferred some 700's back during the last negotiations.

I don't like using fear as a reason to vote for something, I'm simply pointing a likely scenario as the price for rejecting what is A GOOD AGREEMENT. I will totally stand united with my brothers against acceptance of a substandard agreement and if the pilot group rejects this agreement, I will still stand with them even though I disagree. BUT TO REJECT A GOOD AGREEMENT THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO HOLD IT AS HOSTAGE AND DEMAND RANSOM FOR IT LATER IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

 

[aircombat]

I understand the point you are trying to argue; truly I do. What many on this board are trying to rightfully point out is that it's an extremely flawed argument. If I understand you correctly, you have already acknowledged that this LOA may very well be a good one. You further argue that we should reject it no matter whether it's the best in the industry or not so that we can hold it for ransom in the upcoming section 6. Is that correct?

Ok, here are the primary reasons that argument is flawed.

1. The agreement itself contains an accelerated timetable for negotiations with leverage PRE-BUILT in. If an agreement isn't reached in a given period of time BOTH MUST APPLY FOR MEDIATION. No stalling.

2. If this is rejected, it is thrown completely out the window when section 6 starts in May. There WILL BE NO MEDIATOR for as long as they can possibly get their high dollar lawyers to stall.

3. Since we've kicked them in the twins and given them the finger over their industry leading PBS offer and basically told them we don't want to be a part of their long term strategy, they can once again start transferring up to 5 aircraft per year without violating the contract. Yes I said again, they transferred some 700's back during the last negotiations.

I don't like using fear as a reason to vote for something, I'm simply pointing a likely scenario as the price for rejecting what is A GOOD AGREEMENT. I will totally stand united with my brothers against acceptance of a substandard agreement and if the pilot group rejects this agreement, I will still stand with them even though I disagree. BUT TO REJECT A GOOD AGREEMENT THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO HOLD IT AS HOSTAGE AND DEMAND RANSOM FOR IT LATER IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

1. Timetables, paying for 18 months of negotiations. All smoke and mirrors. PBS will be the only thing to keep them from stalling in section 6.

2. They are not going to want to stall. They want this now not in 5 years. What’s going to keep them from stalling if we lose our only leverage?

3. Don’t you worry we will be transferring aircraft regardless. The no furlough clause is the only thing that has stopped that so far. PBS is only going to allow them to shrink ASA faster. Like I said they can just as easily shrink to profitability as grow.

And to say that PBS will be “in the best interest for all parties” is just an ignorant statement. Try telling that the furloughed. And they don’t even get to vote.

 

[sweptback]

1. Timetables, paying for 18 months of negotiations. All smoke and mirrors. PBS will be the only thing to keep them from stalling in section 6.

How much money will the company spend on the 18 months of contract negotiations? Is the company willing to waste that to stall given the razor-thin profit margins of the industry?

2. They are not going to want to stall. They want this now not in 5 years. What’s going to keep them from stalling if we lose our only leverage?

I disagree that PBS is our "only leverage."

3. Don’t you worry we will be transferring aircraft regardless. The no furlough clause is the only thing that has stopped that so far. PBS is only going to allow them to shrink ASA faster. Like I said they can just as easily shrink to profitability as grow.

They still have to keep the same amount of people on the payroll, due to the no-furlough clause. Plus, name one airline in the history of the industry that has shrunk to profitability. Do you understand what happens when an airline shrinks? Have you ever studied the history of our industry?

And to say that PBS will be “in the best interest for all parties” is just an ignorant statement. Try telling that the furloughed. And they don’t even get to vote.

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

 

[LazyLightnin']

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

He's using them as martyrs.

 

[GeekMaster]

He's using them as martyrs.

I think aircombat has made it abundantly clear that he supports killing the LOA NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAY BE. None of us will change his mind.

The important thing is he has now totally exposed the sole foundation of his argument. I think ANYBODY who is still giving valid consideration to how they will vote will understand that holding this LOA as ransom for a later gain instead of considering it on its own merit is a STUPID GAME to play with ones career.

Let me make it clear though. For those of you who read the agreement, go to a roadshow, and come to your own conclusion that you can't support it based on what's in it (its own merit), I respect you for that. I disagree with you, but at least you made an informed decision.

 

[aircombat]

they will spend a lot less in 18 months of talks then they will if they have to pay for an improved PBS system, pay raises, and bonuses to all the pilots.

 

[PCL_128]

You guys are obviously wasting your time. You're arguing with a guy that freely admitted a few posts ago that he "knows nothing about contract negotiations," but here he is arguing about contract negotiations. He doesn't understand where leverage comes from, doesn't understand how the mediator looks at things, and doesn't understand how the NMB attempts to resolve cases. Quite simply, he's ignorant, and apparently has no desire to become informed.

Don't waste your time on him.

 

[Speedtape]

AMEN, Brother! He must be Italian!

 

[aircombat]

You guys are obviously wasting your time. You're arguing with a guy that freely admitted a few posts ago that he "knows nothing about contract negotiations," but here he is arguing about contract negotiations. He doesn't understand where leverage comes from, doesn't understand how the mediator looks at things, and doesn't understand how the NMB attempts to resolve cases. Quite simply, he's ignorant, and apparently has no desire to become informed.

Don't waste your time on him.

Good again with the intimidation. It’s worked for you before so why not. I didn’t say I know nothing so that’s a miss quote, however what should I expect from a union guy. Sadly you make it sound like I know more than you.

 

[aircombat]

I think aircombat has made it abundantly clear that he supports killing the LOA NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAY BE. None of us will change his mind.

The important thing is he has now totally exposed the sole foundation of his argument. I think ANYBODY who is still giving valid consideration to how they will vote will understand that holding this LOA as ransom for a later gain instead of considering it on its own merit is a STUPID GAME to play with ones career.

Let me make it clear though. For those of you who read the agreement, go to a roadshow, and come to your own conclusion that you can't support it based on what's in it (its own merit), I respect you for that. I disagree with you, but at least you made an informed decision.

I do plan to attend a roadshow however it will be taken with a grain of salt. We are already aware that the union is going to be completely biased on this. If the union wanted to convince me that they are impartial then they need to assign a union official to debate the negative side of this LOA. That won’t happen thou. We have seen this before. All cons will have to be solicited by regular pilots and to think we will be able to find even the majority of the faults in a system that none of us are familiar with is a pipedream. The few faults that are exposed will be downplayed, ignored, or the subject changed by the salesman on the soapbox.

When are we going to be given this LOA? We have trouble understanding some things in the line bidding contracts and PBS is totally new. This sales tactic is going to be filled with flat out lies, half truths, exaggerations, down plays, smoke and mirrors, intimidation, and false promises. People will be hesitant to even speak up if they find a fault because they will become belittled. We have seen that as well. I don’t know how you expect to leave a roadshow with a completely informed, impartial view. Only a handful will even read the LOA so they will be given an injustice by being subject the this one sided rhetoric.

So holding PBS ransom until section 6 is a stupid game? We should just pass the ball to the other side of the court because we are afraid. We have no remorse about voting pilots jobs away but god forbid we use PBS to our advantage in section 6.

 

[aircombat]

They still have to keep the same amount of people on the payroll, due to the no-furlough clause. Plus, name one airline in the history of the industry that has shrunk to profitability. Do you understand what happens when an airline shrinks? Have you ever studied the history of our industry?

Most of the majors have been shrinking to profitability for some time now. PBS requires less pilots so we will save money if we shrink or grow.

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

As one PBS supporter pointed out earlier. This does not really save the company that much so to think this might end the company is ridiculous. I hope you are not eluding that PBS might favor all 1500 pilots schedule wise because we all know that's not the case. and yes I would take a slightly less flexible schedule in order not to dissolve peoples jobs.

 

[OCP]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).
PBS aside and what PBS will or won't do to grow or shrink the company, there are really good improvements that I have seen in the LOA. For anyone who has had to deal with reserve for the past few years there are VAST improvements to that section. Hate red arrow days? The system will improve that. Hate 4 days? There will only be 60% of them AT MOST. ASA has no control at how the days will be constructed. That will be Flightline's computers and your preferences relating to seniority all filtered through this industry leading PBS language.
You want to know the "bad" about the deal. Actually TALK to a union rep who worked on this. They will tell you. They're not trying to hide anything.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).
PBS aside and what PBS will or won't do to grow or shrink the company, there are really good improvements that I have seen in the LOA. For anyone who has had to deal with reserve for the past few years there are VAST improvements to that section. Hate red arrow days? The system will improve that. Hate 4 days? There will only be 60% of them AT MOST. ASA has no control at how the days will be constructed. That will be Flightline's computers and your preferences relating to seniority all filtered through this industry leading PBS language.
You want to know the "bad" about the deal. Actually TALK to a union rep who worked on this. They will tell you. They're not trying to hide anything.

I keep having words put in my mouth that I haven’t said. First I never said this isn’t a good PBS system, it might be. I don’t know how you guys have read this LOA, where is it? Secondly I haven’t said that the Union officials are not more experienced at this, I believe they are. Unfortunately they are the same as all of you and are going to look out for number one. I don’t know what their alternative motive is, but from my position it appears that they must get some benefits from having a drawn out section 6 negotiation.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).

With a Grain of Salt (definition)

"You should take what you hear and evaluate it on your own, don't take it for being the truth or correct. The phrase is usually used when a person it giving you the 'low down' on what another person has told you. It is a warning that what that person has said, or may say, is not necessarily correct and accurate."

Shrinking to profitability has been the popular buisness model lately. The
recession doesn't help. What do you want them to do grow out of profitability. Are these layoffs just a figment of my imagination?
Less planes, less pilots = fuller planes, more profit.