2015

[rajflyboy]

Need a mandatory retirement age

unfortunately

 

[CALRepublic]

Yes we do.

Rumor has it a number of owners have expressed concern about some of our "senior" aviators

 

[rajflyboy]

Ego's are cashing checks but the accounts don't have the money to pay the bill

 

[realityman]

Best thing to do is simply read what's offered (if we even get that far. There's no guarantee our NC will come to any kind of agreement) and vote as you think best.

I do love all the guys screaming that the duration is too long, and we'll have to wait FOREVER before we'll have another opportunity to make improvements, then when the opportunity comes along those same folks are screaming they don't trust anyone, it's going to be terrible (they just KNOW it!), and the company can just go sit and spin and they'd rather go with status quo than entertain a negotiating opportunity at this time.

Some funny stuff right there!

I'm going to remain out of the debate this time. Some folks have already made up their minds before our negotiators have sat down for the first session. There'll be no convincing those folks. IF we have something presented to us to vote on, I'll read it, weigh the pros and cons, and vote on what's best for my family, my coworkers and myself.

It'll either pass or it won't. Life will go on either way. At the very least I hope the bargaining part works out (such that we end up with something to vote on). I much prefer this approach then the typical vitriol of section 6 bargaining.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Best thing to do is simply read what's offered (if we even get that far. There's no guarantee our NC will come to any kind of agreement) and vote as you think best.

I do love all the guys screaming that the duration is too long, and we'll have to wait FOREVER before we'll have another opportunity to make improvements, then when the opportunity comes along those same folks are screaming they don't trust anyone, it's going to be terrible (they just KNOW it!), and the company can just go sit and spin and they'd rather go with status quo than entertain a negotiating opportunity at this time.

Some funny stuff right there!

I'm going to remain out of the debate this time. Some folks have already made up their minds before our negotiators have sat down for the first session. There'll be no convincing those folks. IF we have something presented to us to vote on, I'll read it, weigh the pros and cons, and vote on what's best for my family, my coworkers and myself.

It'll either pass or it won't. Life will go on either way. At the very least I hope the bargaining part works out (such that we end up with something to vote on). I much prefer this approach then the typical vitriol of section 6 bargaining.

Since ML is negotiating it, and the usual suspects are ALREADY selling it, yup, I'm a NO vote. And something WILL come to a vote. To think otherwise is truly naive.

The only question that remains is which subsection of the membership gets hosed this time.

 

[realityman]

Since ML is negotiating it, and the usual suspects are ALREADY selling it, yup, I'm a NO vote. And something WILL come to a vote. To think otherwise is truly naive.

The only question that remains is which subsection of the membership gets hosed this time.

I haven't seen anyone selling anything yet. There's northing to sell at this point.

An announcement was made that we'd be trying IBI. A bunch of people went off their rockers on the message boards about it. Tons of groundless speculation. Then some of our leaders, including a few who'd be involved directly with negotiations and our president, came on and explained the entire process in an attempt to talk some folks off the ledge.

That's about it so far. I haven't seen anyone selling anything.

As for how you vote, obviously that's your business. Like I said, I'm going to read any proposal we may see and decide at that time whether it's worth a yes or no vote. I, like many others, wasn't very happy with the duration of this CBA. But I, unlike some others, aren't going to piss and moan about the length of it, then when an opportunity arises to fix some things in it before the duration is up, complain about the chance to do so.

But I do plan on staying out of all the noise that's going to erupt about whatever gets presented. This first attempted round of IBI isn't going to hit on any areas of the CBA that are terribly deep (even though the usual suspects, as you put it, will make enough noise to convince a few that the end is nigh and we should all repent or the devil gets our souls!!!!), so it'll be a good place to start to see if we can actually pull off a fair deal.

 

[gutshotdraw]

How can it possibly be a "fair" deal when the ENTIRE process is predicated on the phrase "cost neutral"? THAT is the operative phrase that should have IMMEDIATELY resulted in the E Board saying "uh, yeah, we're good with the contract as is." The company clearly needs relief desperately enough to move off that position. But that horse is ALREADY out of the barn.

If you can't see that the sudden and FREQUENT appearances by the almighty negotiating genius himself are the beginnng of a pre-emptive sales job, then I can't help you. It isn't "talking people off a ledge." It's gaslighting people into questioning their gut instincts. Google the term....

 

[realityman]

How can it possibly be a "fair" deal when the ENTIRE process is predicated on the phrase "cost neutral"? THAT is the operative phrase that should have IMMEDIATELY resulted in the E Board saying "uh, yeah, we're good with the contract as is." The company clearly needs relief desperately enough to move off that position. But that horse is ALREADY out of the barn.

If you can't see that the sudden and FREQUENT appearances by the almighty negotiating genius himself are the beginnng of a pre-emptive sales job, then I can't help you. It isn't "talking people off a ledge." It's gaslighting people into questioning their gut instincts. Google the term....

Gut, we'll just have to agree to disagree with this. I don't know what everyone expects. There are people on the boards screaming for union leaders to answer their questions. My gosh, if it goes more than 20 minutes after someone asks a question and no one shows up to answer, it's suddenly all a big conspiracy theory and cover-up. But when leaders finally do show up to answer the questions and explain their perspectives, they're making a "sales job" or "gas lighting" everyone. No matter what they do they can't win.

Yeah, ML is getting a bit defensive early on, but in this case I can't blame him. The parties haven't even met yet and there are some pretty awful things being said about them already. Heck, one guy even accused our union leadership of being corrupt! That's some pretty heavy stuff right there, especially with no examples or proof being provided to back that statement up. I get it that people are concerned. I agree we should approach these talks VERY cautiously. But reading many of the comments on our boards, yes, some folks are standing at the ledge. It's flat out ridiculous. People aren't even listening to the answers being provided by our leaders. BW explained, in answer to someone's question, that the scope of discussions will cover about 50% of things the company has said they want, and 50% of things the union has said they want. And even after that explanation, just this morning someone was shrilly posting about it's ridiculous that we're entertaining these talks where the company is dictating 100% of the things to be discussed. They're simply ignoring the facts as just previously explained by BW.

So no, I'm not very confident in the gut instincts of people who don't seem to have any reading comprehension.

I voted no on the last CBA. I'm not susceptible to sales jobs. Or, at least, not as susceptible as some. But I'm still willing to give them a chance to put something forward that's acceptable. Despite all the screaming, no one, not one single person, moved backwards with '15 CBA. Some gained more than others, but EVERYONE gained. We are better off than before this CBA. I can't think of a single person I know, PIC or SIC, who would be doing better right now if we were still operating under '07 CBA. Yes, we fell short of a lot of goals with '15 CBA. No doubt about it. Be we did okay, and people acting like we sold our collective souls to the devil with this CBA is just absurd.

If the proposal (if we see one) isn't good, my index finger is ready to click the "no" key again. But I'd like to see what's presented before passing judgement. I have something else to say about "cost neutral", but I'm going to make it a separate post.

 

[realityman]

About cost neutral. That's a tough one, and an even tougher spot for the union.

As we've all seen, the company isn't growing. We're treading water. That's concerning. For a number of reasons. Certainly, without growth the prospects for upgrades for our SIC's is very dim. There just isn't much, if any, career progression for them. Stuck forever on the SIC payscale. That sucks! Certainly if they can't upgrade we should be looking for other ways to improve things for them. However, I'll get to how it relates to cost neutral.
Another reason it's concerning is for everyone else on the seniority list.

Here's why. With no growth, there's no real opportunity for the company to greatly increase profits. If we're remaining the same size we WILL (if we haven't already come close to it) max out on the profit we can make at our present size. There's a certain amount of churn with our clients, as well as the usual ups and downs with levels of actual flying. But if we don't grow, there won't be any large increases in profits.

So this move by the company wanting greater efficiencies isn't unexpected. With no growth, the only way to increase profits is to gain it through increased efficiencies.

What does this mean to us? Well, for starters, without any growth, and therefore stagnant profits, it means anything we do that increases costs means less for us further down the line. For example, a lot of folks are screaming we need to hire more pilots. I tend to agree with this. We're being pushed to the limits right now, and I just don't think they can squeeze any more duty and flight hours out of us. At least, not without seriously compromising safety. So, we need more pilots. But it's important to note that hiring more pilots means money coming out of the stagnant profits to pay those new pilots. One hundred new pilots costs millions. That's fine, as I agree we need more pilots, but we need to recognize that hiring more without growth means less money available to us when we want things that will cost the company money.

By the way, I'm not looking to start a discussion with you about how much profit is REALLY there. We can do that another time. What I'm saying applies regardless of the amount of profit.

Anyway, how should the union handle it? If we can make improvements without costing the company more money, should we walk away? If there are ways to make our lives easier, or at least improve QOL, and at the same time aid the company in being more efficient, wouldn't we be smart to take it? If we walk away because of the phrase "cost neutral", how have we improved our situation? If we INSIST on improvements that cost the company money, if the company doesn't grow, then when we want the really big stuff, like pay increases, that money won't be there. In other words, without growth all we really have available to us to make improvements are things that can be offset. It sucks, and I'm not trying to sugar coat it. I'd prefer there be an unlimited pool of money that company is hiding which we know about.

People want upgrades. They want higher payscales. They want a 16% direct contribution to the 401K, as well as increasing the company match to maximum. They want Economy+ tickets (at the least) booked for every flight. And nothing less than The Four Seasons on every overnight. They want to only work 8 hours a day, and schedules that involve no more than 10 days a month. Heck Gut, I'd like all that too!! Count me in!! But all of that will cost the company a ton of money! No growth = no money for all that.

So again, where are we going to get any improvements from? Sadly, at this point, it's going to be in the smaller things where the company sees some advantage too.

The last point being, if in increased profits are only coming from increased efficiencies, then to deny the company those efficiencies is to mean less money available when negotiations come around again.

I'm not a company guy. Not by a long shot. I'll walk the walk when the time comes again. I'll donate the miles and points. I'll OTP until my head explodes. But I'm not going to ignore certain realities because I don't like them. And I'm not going to castigate our leadership for exploring every avenue possible to improve things for us.

Take care Gut!

 

[gutshotdraw]

" Heck, one guy even accused our union leadership of being corrupt!"


If the shoe fits....

The fact that such a foul person is STILL running the negotiating committee is enough for me to wash my hands of this union leadership.

In my view, he disqualified himself years ago when he was President and violated DFR against one of his members in an email to his Stewards. I gave him another chance to rectify it during the CBA 15 negotiations. I did everything they asked. Attended every picket I could. OTP'd to the best of my ability. Crossed my fingers that his bias against a certain segment of the membership wouldn't surface. But it did. In spades.

I won't make the same mistake again.