It seems to me that we have two extremes on this thread, and no one in the middle (the reality). We've got some that seem to think that we shouldn't even be considering a strike, while others seem to relish the idea and think we shouldn't even be considering Alaska rates, as if they're too low. Both of these sides are ridiculous.
On the one side, you need to realize that you have no leverage if you don't prepare for a strike. Without the credible threat of a strike, management has no incentive to bargain. If they believe that the pilot group won't carry through on a strike, then they can just sit back and wait for the NMB to release us, because they know that the pilot group won't have the balls to use the leverage that the NMB has given us. Not a smart strategy. The credible threat of a strike, and the willingness of the pilot group to carry through on it, is absolutely essential for effective bargaining under the RLA.
On the other side, however, you need to realize that expecting something like a 50% pay raise for FOs is absolutely laughable. That would put our 7-year FOs making far more than 12-year FOs at Alaska, Delta, AMR, etc. No NMB, even the Obama NMB, will even consider releasing you with such ridiculous demands. You would be in the same position as the APA, with the NMB not even bothering to schedule negotiating dates for months at a time. Sound productive? Of course not. On one hand you seem to want to strike, but on the other hand you want to make demands that will ensure that the NMB will never even consider allowing you to do so. Time for reality, guys.
Thankfully, most of our pilots are somewhere in the middle. They want a vastly improved contract, similar to Alaska, Hawaiian, etc., and they're willing to strike if they don't get it, although they don't want to strike. That is the reasonable position, and that's what's going to get us what we want.
