Pretty decent turnout at the PHL APA meeting today, including several third-listers. I'm sure they'll have thoughts to add, but here's my (possibly too long) take-away from the meeting...
Most of what was talked about was really a rehash of the updates and conference calls we've had, with very little new information. The bit of information that was new to me, and that I think is pretty significant, is that there is a third option available to us besides reaching an agreement on a JCBA or going to arbitration. Apparently, according to both DiOrio and APA counsel, we can also simply accept the Green Book as is, with no arbitration required. Should we fail to reach a TA, this option would allow us to avoid potentially losing anything in the arbitration, as any work rule changes we ask for would come along with off-setting changes in the company's favor to remain cost-neutral. Agreeing to the Green Book would keep all of AA's language in place, including "reasonably available by ground transportation" on the positive side, and the company's ability to assign R30s out of base on the negative side.
Keeping the Green Book as-is would also, in DiOrio's view, cause the company to come back to us very quickly to negotiate the change to HBT that they are seeking through the JCBA talks. There seems to be a lot of confusion over what the HBT issue entails, so I'll pass along my understanding of it... While FAR 117 calls for the use of local time to establish duty time limits if you're acclimated to the theater, APA negotiated a side letter that requires AA to use Home Base Time instead. As an example, AA's flight HKG-DFW reports at 1240 local time, but that's 0140 DFW time. Using local time, as the company would like to do, allows a 19-hour FDP for a 4-pilot crew using Class I rest facilities; using the contractually mandated HBT only allows a 17-hour FDP. According to a few L-AA guys present, there are already a few routes where using HBT leaves only a very small buffer for delays (about 20 minutes, apparently), while using local time would give more padding for possible delays. According to DiOrio, there are new routes the company would like to start that are either very close to or beyond the limits using HBT. Therefore, the change is very important to the company, and they would be likely to revisit the issue if we keep the Green Book. A separate negotiation on this topic alone would likely allow us to extract more value out of the concession than we currently can in JCBA talks, as we would have significant leverage to value the change in our favor, since it's such a critical issue for the company.
Another change we would see on the US side if we kept the Green Book without arbitration would be that establishment of separate Domestic and International divisions not just for the widebodies, but also for the Airbus fleet. While the company has portrayed joining the divisions as cost-neutral, the reality is that there would be a definite expense to the company, in both staffing and schedule efficiency/optimization, to split the Airbus fleet in each base. Whether any individual pilot values split divisions or not, the fact is that moving away from separate divisions on the AA side saves the company significant money both through improved efficiency/lower staffing on the AA side and through not incurring the expense to establish separate divisions on the US side. Thus, if we entertain giving this up, we should do so only if they are willing to pass on that savings to us through other improvements. Again, we might be able to extract more value from this if we agree to the Green Book in its current form, then allow the company to come back asking us for changes when they realize they won't have an arbitration through which to force the concession.
All of this is not to say that we should be unwilling to entertain these or other changes through the JCBA negotiations; rather, that we should only entertain such changes if they are accompanied by commensurate (or greater) gains. Aside from the reserve callout, most or all of the company's asks, including the HBT and Domestic/International changes, are pretty much industry standard. I'm open to the possibility of changing some of our better than standard provisions to match standard, but not without pay also going up to industry standard. The company's current offer isn't adequate on this front, as it only gives us industry standard-ish pay for the first year, while leaving us to fall farther and farther behind standard in subsequent years of the agreement. Without both a mid-contract adjustment (2018-ish, at least after DL signs their new PWA), and a higher than offered additional percentage to compensate for lack of profit sharing, we should not even be considering concessions to other areas of the contract. Further, whatever percentage we agree on to be added to hourly rates in lieu of profit sharing need to be added not just to the initial rates, but also to the rates that would be established during any mid-contract parity adjustment. For example, if we settle on 7% above DL in lieu of profit sharing, then we need to also add 7% to the rates established in a theoretical new mid-contract review.
I know there's the contingent who believes that we should take the company's final offer, whatever it may be, because it gets us money sooner. While I'm open to voting in favor of a JCBA that, while higher paying than the MTA, doesn't have DL-level pay throughout its duration, I would do so only to the extent that the agreement doesn't also include concessions that would last, in all probability, for the rest of our careers. We collectively decided two years ago, however, that we could accept the MOU/MTA as our contract for the next four years, and I'm ready to stand by that decision if the company chooses not to make modifying it worth while for us.
Finally, DiOrio's view, and I hope he's right, is that enough of the APA BoD is willing to turn down a bad agreement rather than send it out to the pilots for a vote. While it would be fantastic if we could reach an agreement that is worthy of a yes vote, failure of the company to provide an adequate agreement should not be rewarded with a vote. Rather, the negotiating committee and BoD should take responsibility for stopping the offer in its tracks if it doesn't provide more value than it takes away."
