American... Get that rig!

[Guppiedriver]

I thought if they turned this down, they had already agreed to arbitration on the combined contract.

Red, you have it right. All of these knuckheads claiming otherwise are full of s hit.

 

[Hawaiian 5-0]

Never mind.

 

[Metrojet]

American pilots accepted 7 additional concessions to get an early and increase in pay and also pushed out Section 6 till 2020. The money was the bribe and the pilots accepted it, this is a 9/11 contract till 2020, do not polish this turd into something it is not...no profit sharing also.

And PHX voted yes 91%

 

[aa73]

after reading thru this, it's just depressing..

Management at AA squeezed out a ton of productivity from the pilots (looks like the AWA guys jumped on it!).. and gave them an "hourly" raise that lines up with DAL.. Had they just waited for a section six, they'd have done a lot better for themselves. The problem is not just how much you get paid, but HOW you clock those hours?? I can't believe this crap.

I sure hope this doesn't poison our negotiations at HAL... thanks AA! (not)

I think a fact check is on order... there is so much misinformation on this board.

Fact: Our work rules were already below delta/united with the MTA we signed two years ago. They were not part of the JCBA offer and there was no improvement with a no vote either.

Fact: the JCBA pay rates currently put us at 7% above delta. No, I'm not counting profit sharing. Would I like it? Definitely - but only in a solid profitable economy. Ditch it when it goes south, please.

Fact: had we voted no, we would have subjected our ENTIRE GREEN BOOK (contract) to cost neutral arbitration. The arbitrator was Bloch. Need I say more?

Fact: had we voted no, we would have remained at our bk MTA pay rates until next year, then gotten a weighted average of whatever delta and united were making at that point. In other words, we'd be depending - once again! - on delta and united raising the bar.

Are you all familiar with just how quickly this industry can fall into the toilet? Waiting a year, only to remain below delta and united pay, while giving up an instant 23% raise that puts us above everybody and re establishes pattern bargaining, was not a good idea to me.

We voted yes, got industry leading pay rates, and got some contract fixes in exchange for some contract gives. Sounds exactly like every successful section 6 negotiation in the past.

Am I pissed we didn't get 5hr min calendar day and profit sharing? Yes! But that wasn't offered in the JCBA and we weren't going to get it by voting no, either.

Let's remember these points, please:

- Delta and united both eagerly passed their first post-bk contracts by a landslide: contracts that were well inferior to the one we just passed.

- given the point above, how could one deny that delta and united wouldn't have passed this current offer fresh out of bk by a landslide as well?

Guys, this was a choice between crappy and crappier. I tried to vote wisely while at the same time upping the pay bar for delta and united. The work rules were not part of the equation: that was due to the box APA cornered us into by signing the MTA and giving Parker the worst case scenario of cost neutral arbitration backstop. Voting No would have submitted our green book to a company-friendly arbitrator, while giving the company an immediate 1.6B windfall while keeping us well below the industry for at least another year or two - probably just in time for the next recession to hit. How do section 6 negotiations work during recessions?

I'm convinced we did the right thing.

Now that the pay is fixed - one less Damocles sword dangling over our head - we have opportunities to improve the work rules through side letters and such, as merger-related implementations come up and the company will need our cooperation. As I recall, delta did exactly that: their 5:15 min calendar day came as a result of a side letter they did with the company on exchange for HBT.

Good luck to you all who have contract negotiations coming up. At the very least we've given you a pay rate to shoot for.

73

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Where's Pave Driver?

 

[Guppiedriver]

I think a fact check is on order... there is so much misinformation on this board.

Fact: Our work rules were already below delta/united with the MTA we signed two years ago. They were not part of the JCBA offer and there was no improvement with a no vote either.

Fact: the JCBA pay rates currently put us at 7% above delta. No, I'm not counting profit sharing. Would I like it? Definitely - but only in a solid profitable economy. Ditch it when it goes south, please.

Fact: had we voted no, we would have subjected our ENTIRE GREEN BOOK (contract) to cost neutral arbitration. The arbitrator was Bloch. Need I say more?

Fact: had we voted no, we would have remained at our bk MTA pay rates until next year, then gotten a weighted average of whatever delta and united were making at that point. In other words, we'd be depending - once again! - on delta and united raising the bar.

Are you all familiar with just how quickly this industry can fall into the toilet? Waiting a year, only to remain below delta and united pay, while giving up an instant 23% raise that puts us above everybody and re establishes pattern bargaining, was not a good idea to me.

We voted yes, got industry leading pay rates, and got some contract fixes in exchange for some contract gives. Sounds exactly like every successful section 6 negotiation in the past.

Am I pissed we didn't get 5hr min calendar day and profit sharing? Yes! But that wasn't offered in the JCBA and we weren't going to get it by voting no, either.

Let's remember these points, please:

- Delta and united both eagerly passed their first post-bk contracts by a landslide: contracts that were well inferior to the one we just passed.

- given the point above, how could one deny that delta and united wouldn't have passed this current offer fresh out of bk by a landslide as well?

Guys, this was a choice between crappy and crappier. I tried to vote wisely while at the same time upping the pay bar for delta and united. The work rules were not part of the equation: that was due to the box APA cornered us into by signing the MTA and giving Parker the worst case scenario of cost neutral arbitration backstop. Voting No would have submitted our green book to a company-friendly arbitrator, while giving the company an immediate 1.6B windfall while keeping us well below the industry for at least another year or two - probably just in time for the next recession to hit. How do section 6 negotiations work during recessions?

I'm convinced we did the right thing.

Now that the pay is fixed - one less Damocles sword dangling over our head - we have opportunities to improve the work rules through side letters and such, as merger-related implementations come up and the company will need our cooperation. As I recall, delta did exactly that: their 5:15 min calendar day came as a result of a side letter they did with the company on exchange for HBT.

Good luck to you all who have contract negotiations coming up. At the very least we've given you a pay rate to shoot for.

73

Well said.

 

[Azul]

A pay rate to shoot for! Dumbest thing i have heard on this thread. You cant cherry pick things to negotiate. Imagine the back and forth.. Delta union, we want aa pay rates. Delta management well ok, but then u get their profit sharing and work rules. Poof, were hosed! Never ever did i think it would be the pilots at aa that would hose the industry. And then to defend themselves is just abhorrent. Unbelievable!!! At least have the balls to say, yeah we wanted the money, to hell with everything and everybody else. That I could at least respect.

 

[ricj41]

Azulejo, you obviously don't understand the constraints the AA pilots were negotiating under. Work rules were never going to be part of the equation. Read aa73's post again.

 

[HA25]

Azulejo, you obviously don't understand the constraints the AA pilots were negotiating under. Work rules were never going to be part of the equation. Read aa73's post again.

truth is they could have held out for section 6... the DAL guys were already doing a lot of heavy lifting, as were we at HAL about to do.. (and as we did in 2010 when we set industry rates and retirement benefits)..

I have mixed feelings about the AA situation and while I understand the despair for the pay raise, truth is, we will never have a chance to get productivity back to where it was in the pre-9/11 contracts ever again if this becomes the new "industry standard"

 

[General Lee]

truth is they could have held out for section 6... the DAL guys were already doing a lot of heavy lifting, as were we at HAL about to do.. (and as we did in 2010 when we set industry rates and retirement benefits)..

I have mixed feelings about the AA situation and while I understand the despair for the pay raise, truth is, we will never have a chance to get productivity back to where it was in the pre-9/11 contracts ever again if this becomes the new "industry standard"

AA sure didn't help HA's future contract talks. DL currently has 3 day trips worth 15:45 (unless arrival morning of the third day between 12am to 2am local). Which way will your HA management lean? I can see why you're not happy.... A lot of your future 321Neo flights will probably be 2 leg three day trips to West Coast cities, and that wouldn't be great if they were worth 11-12 hours total.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[HA25]

AA sure didn't help HA's future contract talks. DL currently has 3 day trips worth 15:45 (unless arrival morning of the third day between 12am to 2am local). Which way will your HA management lean? I can see why you're not happy.... A lot of your future 321Neo flights will probably be 2 leg three day trips to West Coast cities, and that wouldn't be great if they were worth 11-12 hours total.



Bye Bye---General Lee

right now the vast majority of our West Coast trips are 3 day... on the 330. The NEO should be more "productive" we hope.. time will tell, as they haven't announced how they plan to operate or base them.

Yes, AA did us no favor.. the pay was going to come (as you guys are showing).. it's the productivity that we are worried about.

 

[aa73]

truth is they could have held out for section 6... the DAL guys were already doing a lot of heavy lifting, as were we at HAL about to do.. (and as we did in 2010 when we set industry rates and retirement benefits)..

I have mixed feelings about the AA situation and while I understand the despair for the pay raise, truth is, we will never have a chance to get productivity back to where it was in the pre-9/11 contracts ever again if this becomes the new "industry standard"

HA25, General Lee, I have a feeling you and many of you on this board don't quite understand the ramifications involved had we voted no and chosen to "just wait for section 6."

Here would be the timeline for that:

- We vote No
- We immediately forfeit an industry leading pay rate
- We submit our entire contract to a cost neutral arbitration
- The arbitrator is Bloch, who historically rules in the company's favor
- We get a weighted average of delta/united pay in 2016, once again dependent and riding delta/united coat tails
- We once again stay well below the industry in pay (the weighted average would be far below the JCBA immediate industry leading pay rate)
- We start early openers in 2017
- The company chooses to "kick the can" for another 3-5 years
- All of this in the hopes that the industry is not in the toilet again with a recession
- Rinse and repeat.

Etc, etc.

I don't think you guys understand that we were not in section 6, and didn't have any kind of leverage or unity to engage with a no vote. The company would have proceeded on with their new arbitrated contract, and we would have floundered on with our Bk contract subjected to a cost neutral arbitrator.

THE WORK RULES WERE NOT IN PLACE. They were never there. We never had 5hr min calendar day...before bk, during, or after. It wasn't part of the JCBA and it DEFINITELY would not have been part of a cost neutral arbitration.

Would I like 5hr min calendar day? YES! Just how would you guys have suggested getting it from the company when it wasn't available through the JCBA or through cost neutral arbitration?

The only way we will get it, along with other work rule improvements, is:

- through side letters (like Delta did)
- through the next section 6 in 2019.

This JCBA was far from perfect. It fixed the pay issues and some work rules but not all of them.

Let's all remember please that the Delta and United post-Bk JCBAs were nothing to write home about and were quite inferior to ours today - and yet still passed by a landslide. Nobody gets their dream contract with their first post-bk contract. The fixes will come , just like they did with delta and united.

General Lee, your company (Delta) only just got 5:15 min calendar day last year through a side letter in which you traded HBT. In other words, as the company needed cooperation with the union, improvements that were not part of the original contract, were secured. We hope to be able to do the same.

I hope this clears it up.

73

 

[redflyer65]

Excellent analyst AA. I'm sad that you don't have better work rules and voting this down wouldn't have helped. It was clearly a rock and a hard place.

Take the rates now and work on the other items down the road. Completely agree.

 

[General Lee]

HA25, General Lee, I have a feeling you and many of you on this board don't quite understand the ramifications involved had we voted no and chosen to "just wait for section 6."

Here would be the timeline for that:

- We vote No
- We immediately forfeit an industry leading pay rate
- We submit our entire contract to a cost neutral arbitration
- The arbitrator is Bloch, who historically rules in the company's favor
- We get a weighted average of delta/united pay in 2016, once again dependent and riding delta/united coat tails
- We once again stay well below the industry in pay (the weighted average would be far below the JCBA immediate industry leading pay rate)
- We start early openers in 2017
- The company chooses to "kick the can" for another 3-5 years
- All of this in the hopes that the industry is not in the toilet again with a recession
- Rinse and repeat.

Etc, etc.

I don't think you guys understand that we were not in section 6, and didn't have any kind of leverage or unity to engage with a no vote. The company would have proceeded on with their new arbitrated contract, and we would have floundered on with our Bk contract subjected to a cost neutral arbitrator.

THE WORK RULES WERE NOT IN PLACE. They were never there. We never had 5hr min calendar day...before bk, during, or after. It wasn't part of the JCBA and it DEFINITELY would not have been part of a cost neutral arbitration.

Would I like 5hr min calendar day? YES! Just how would you guys have suggested getting it from the company when it wasn't available through the JCBA or through cost neutral arbitration?

The only way we will get it, along with other work rule improvements, is:

- through side letters (like Delta did)
- through the next section 6 in 2019.

This JCBA was far from perfect. It fixed the pay issues and some work rules but not all of them.

Let's all remember please that the Delta and United post-Bk JCBAs were nothing to write home about and were quite inferior to ours today - and yet still passed by a landslide. Nobody gets their dream contract with their first post-bk contract. The fixes will come , just like they did with delta and united.

General Lee, your company (Delta) only just got 5:15 min calendar day last year through a side letter in which you traded HBT. In other words, as the company needed cooperation with the union, improvements that were not part of the original contract, were secured. We hope to be able to do the same.

I hope this clears it up.

73

I hear you, but the result overall still sux. Better pay, but the rest didn't help anyone else. Hopefully it will be changed in future TAs.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Angus Khan]

Nice job aa73 intelligently summing up our position. And exactly why I voted 'yes'.