A Position of Strength
The APA leadership just completed a week of joint collective bargaining agreement briefing sessions, with the national officers and briefing teams composed of Negotiating Committee members and APA department heads having visited most of the domiciles. I hope you were able to attend one of the briefing sessions or at least found time to study the JCBA educational material posted to
APA Negotiations. If you attended a briefing session, then you’ve seen firsthand the spirited debate about the JCBA proposal we’re considering.
Based on everything I have seen and heard, I believe the decision before us with the JCBA is binary. Vote yes and achieve industry-leading pay rates, along with other, more modest contractual improvements in exchange for a small number of modifications to our contract consistent with industry standards. Vote no and proceed to a cost-neutral arbitration, which means forgoing immediate raises, retro pay and contractual improvements while preserving unchanged items in the contract management wants to address.
While not perfect — the lack of profit-sharing and calendar day stand out among its shortcomings — there’s no question that the JCBA delivers more value to our pilots than an arbitrated outcome, as management made clear to shareholders in a Form 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this month. In that SEC filing, management projected an increase of $650 million in pilot compensation for 2015 if pilots vote to approve the JCBA. Conversely, management projected no increase in pilot costs for 2015 if pilots vote no and we go to arbitration.
In addition to representing industry-standard practice, most of the contractual changes that management seeks are in my view essentially parochial. In other words, they’re changes affecting different segments of pilots, rather than the entire group. “Promptly” versus “reasonably available” for reserves and revised home-base time for wide-body long-haul pilots fall into the parochial category. While each item management seeks is important — particularly if it’s something that affects you personally — we need to consider the proposal in its entirety and decide whether the positive outweighs the negative.
A thoughtful analysis of other proposed changes such as two years of length of service illustrates the gains that would accrue to different segments of our pilot group. Coupled with the increased percentage of captain’s pay in the JCBA pay rates in years two through six, the LOS means that a four-year Super 80 first officer would be paid comparable to what a 12-year 767 first officer now earns, in effect providing additional incremental pay improvements to our junior-most pilots.
American Airlines CEO Doug Parker did state at a recent crew meeting in Charlotte that the JCBA might remain available to our pilots after the arbitration pending approval by the company’s board of directors, so it’s conceivable we could eventually choose between the JCBA and the arbitrators’ ruling. That’s assuming our board of directors would be willing to reconsider the same deal. I won’t venture a prediction there.
What does accrue to
all the membership: the pay rates that will put American Airlines pilots at the top of our peers and “in the ballpark” with respect to total compensation. Coming so quickly after exiting bankruptcy and a merger, the pay rates alone will help drive pattern bargaining in a direction beneficial to our profession as Delta, United and Southwest each work toward new contracts in the near future.
When our peers at Delta and United emerged from their respective Chapter 11 restructurings, they did not immediately achieve industry-leading contracts. We have arguably come much further, much faster than either of those pilot groups post-Chapter 11. But instead of making such comparisons, I think we should focus on the choice before us.
We know the arbitration outcome will be cost-neutral, so do we want to wait several months, say “no thanks” to retro pay worth about $48 million each month and at best end up with what’s on the table now minus the time value of lost money? A yes vote locks in real gains now, while a no vote sends us to binding arbitration, delaying any possible prospective gains for months.
As Dirty Harry famously asked, “Do you feel lucky?” I do feel fortunate, but not about our prospects in arbitration or whether we would end up reconsidering the same deal months later. Instead, I’m grateful we’re having a vigorous debate about whether to vote yes for industry-leading pay rates and other contractual improvements 13 months after American Airlines emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The notion that turning down the JCBA would produce the leverage that delivers an industry-leading contract doesn’t ring true for me. Instead, a no vote would keep our pay rates the lowest of our peers and cement us in a position of trailing our peers by a wider margin for the foreseeable future. When we enter the next round of bargaining, we would have to spend significant capital in an attempt to recoup the gains the JCBA delivers now, rather than negotiating from a position of strength and turning our focus to other contractual areas that need meaningful improvement.
For all of these reasons, I plan to vote yes and ask that you give serious consideration to doing the same. Above all, whether you lean for or against the JCBA, I urge you to vote. The only “wrong” choice here would be to refrain from voting. Whether you have two months, two years or most of your career remaining, we all have the same obligation to participate in the democratic process. Cast your vote — decide your future.
Thank you for your patience, support and participation.
