Alaska contract

[Old School 737]

There is no reason to negotiate with this pilot group for meaningful improvements because they know we will cave. Had this pilot group shown some resolve and unity then things may have gone different. They knew we would roll over and we did its that simple.

I don't blame the company one bit. They did exactly as I would expect them to do. When you negotiate with pansies this is what you get, chump change for pay and all the work rule improvements the company could ask for.

So true...

 

[Boxboy]

So what do you think would have happened if the group turned down the TA? Do you think the company would have just automatically given you more? Did the company need to get a deal with you in a timely manner for some reason? I just want to understand the plan that the no voters had if the TA was rejected, what was the new strategy that would have resulted in better gains?

Do you even work for Alaska?

 

[fam62c]

Do you even work for Alaska?

No, but the question is still legitimate.

 

[flythere]

So what do you think would have happened if the group turned down the TA? Do you think the company would have just automatically given you more? Did the company need to get a deal with you in a timely manner for some reason? I just want to understand the plan that the no voters had if the TA was rejected, what was the new strategy that would have resulted in better gains?

Well, let's see:

1. polling would start within a week or so to figure out what went wrong

2. give it another 2 weeks to compile a list of the top 4 or 5 items that members voted against. (remember we had 4 cornerstones)

3. We then rank those 4 or 5 items and send the negotiators back to the table

granted the company and negotiating committee would have had their feelings hurt, they would have met sometime around Sept for some type of preliminary talks, maybe sooner considering how cozy they were during this process!!

The last thing management wanted was another labor group upset about pay or compensation!!

No worries now, it's a mute point for another 6 or 7 years!!!

 

[Old School 737]

Tru dat !!

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Moot. Moot point. But great post.

 

[fam62c]

Well, let's see:

1. polling would start within a week or so to figure out what went wrong

2. give it another 2 weeks to compile a list of the top 4 or 5 items that members voted against. (remember we had 4 cornerstones)

3. We then rank those 4 or 5 items and send the negotiators back to the table

granted the company and negotiating committee would have had their feelings hurt, they would have met sometime around Sept for some type of preliminary talks, maybe sooner considering how cozy they were during this process!!

The last thing management wanted was another labor group upset about pay or compensation!!

No worries now, it's a mute point for another 6 or 7 years!!!

Well, that would have been one way to go no doubt and it might have resulted in some favorable tweaks and a better offer in a timely manner. It also might have resulted in no movement with a lengthy trip into years of NMB mediation with a deal far in the future only marginally better than what you have now. To take or not to take the bird in the hand is always a tough decision.

You are right though you will never know what the outcome would have been because the majority of your pilots wanted something they could take to the bank now. As far as the company worried about labor being upset, I don't work there and maybe Alaska is different but most airlines are looking at cost first. They know that the planes are going to get flown even if pilots are upset and they realize that some percentage of the pilots at every airline are always upset about something no matter what. They also know that they have a waiting line of pilots who want to live in the bases you have to offer who would be happy to work under your existing contract. It's much cheaper to have some upset pilots than to give you SWA or DAL compensation, that's the unfortunate reality of the situation.

 

[igneousy2]

So what do you think would have happened if the group turned down the TA? Do you think the company would have just automatically given you more? Did the company need to get a deal with you in a timely manner for some reason? I just want to understand the plan that the no voters had if the TA was rejected, what was the new strategy that would have resulted in better gains?

I'll give this a try...

1. We hire a big time PR firm to run a PR campaign with the message..."Alaska pilots are pissed and will do everything in their power to give fair compensation INCLUDING a strike!"

2. We hire a big time labor law firm to do two things...1. Make sure the PR firm stays in-bounds but gets us as close to the edge as possible...2. gives us people at the negotiating table that eat, sleep, and breathe negotiating.

So when our full page ads run in the Seattle times run giving the message that a strike is imminent, and KING-5 is running footage of 200 pilots and 200 flight attendants picketing at SEATAC airport (okay realistically, 20 pilots and 300 flight attendants)...then we sit at the table and see what we can get. Right now, we got what we got by begging, we chose not to swing the one itsy-bitsy hammer we have.

 

[PCL_128]

Sounds like a great way to get the NMB to not take you seriously, park negotiations, and give management exactly what they want, leaving you pounding your chest like a maniac, but not getting a new contract for five years, which ends up being almost identical to the one you voted down.

Which is exactly why line pilots should listen to the lawyers and not each other about how to handle negotiations.

 

[igneousy2]

Sounds like a great way to get the NMB to not take you seriously, park negotiations, and give management exactly what they want, leaving you pounding your chest like a maniac, but not getting a new contract for five years, which ends up being almost identical to the one you voted down.

Which is exactly why line pilots should listen to the lawyers and not each other about how to handle negotiations.

Yep, just keep believing that management line. The NMB doesn't care what the contract says at the end of the day...all they care about is that there is a contract. They tell the union guys "i'm going to park you if you don't give in..." then they go down the hall to the management guys and tell them "we're going to release them if you don't give in." They don't care if the ending contract gets us industry leading wages or puts us at the bottom of the pile.

If it were that simple, and there was as much incentive to park us as the management hacks claim, then why would they give us a contract at all? Wouldn't we all just be "parked" in negotiations.