No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[samballs]

Has the union or company given you guys anything on this yet, what makes you believe it will be the best. Think that is far thinking.

 

[LazyLightnin']

Has the union or company given you guys anything on this yet?

Yes..

 

[sweptback]

Because the company wants this badly. What's in the koolaid that makes us think we are the ones that want PBS the most. Why wouldn’t they negotiate further? That’s what we pay the union to do. In section 6 we can improve the other sections in order to sweeten the deal. This is giving them a new contract without even having to give a bonus check. This LOA totally changes the two largest sections of the contract.

Because, let's face it, the vote is a referendum on PBS. If the result is no, then there is no need to take the PBS exploratory process further.

Let me ask you the same question in a different way. If we get a good PBS system now, and then go into Section 6 with primarily issues pertaining to QOL, pay, and scope, don't you think we'd be in a better negotiating position? Or would you rather spend most of our negotiating capital to get the same PBS system we have now with a few minor tweaks, and not make any large improvements to QOL, pay or scope?

 

[aircombat]

Has the union or company given you guys anything on this yet, what makes you believe it will be the best. Think that is far thinking.

Not really, only small censored blips. I took this quote form another board because it is funny yet sadly true.
“CAR DEALER: I have a great car for you...it's perfect

ME: How many horsepower? What type of transmission?

DEALER: It's got some cylinders and a few gears but it's perfect for you!

ME: How many doors?

DEALER: It's got some, can't say for sure though....but it's great! Should be perfect for you!

ME: How's the ride?

DEALER: Well it hasn't even been driven yet and you won't get to drive it either but its perfect for you!

ME: I don't get to drive it?

DEALER: No, but I'll show it to you from across the parking lot..it's perfect for you! So...what do I have to do to get you in this car today?

ME: Huh????”
Other ASA pilot: Sold

 

[aircombat]

Because, let's face it, the vote is a referendum on PBS. If the result is no, then there is no need to take the PBS exploratory process further.

Let me ask you the same question in a different way. If we get a good PBS system now, and then go into Section 6 with primarily issues pertaining to QOL, pay, and scope, don't you think we'd be in a better negotiating position? Or would you rather spend most of our negotiating capital to get the same PBS system we have now with a few minor tweaks, and not make any large improvements to QOL, pay or scope?

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.

 

[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.