Wow.....quad.....the goal of your "it's time" thread is blowing up the AOA because you're dissatisfied over the lack of progress in talks yet here are busy saying how the sky will fall if we dig in for a necessary fight.
That's what I'd call an absolutely untenable and inconsistent position.
Unification under the AOA remains our best option at this juncture to present a coherent front in negotiating a just contract. It would be nice if mediation will produce a decent result however there's absolutely no reason (given the punitive and frankly childish bargaining position of the company) to believe that it will. As it runs its course we need be prepared for the follow on actions that will very likely happen. No one here can fix this; what we CAN do is collectively DEAL with the likely outcome in the best manner possible. So doing in a whiny, fragmented selfish scared-rabbit manner will result in long term losses to us all.
Whining about the situation--one way or the other--is useless. It is what it is and our part of the equation is to deal with it. Were we "tricked" into negotiating in good faith by elements within the company that had no intent of so doing ? Perhaps, but all we have lost is a little time which actually, from the situation, may well favor us with commitments for aircraft orders and going into the summer travel season.
There is presently all kinds of room for negotiations--not only in basic pay and rostering but other areas; everything from performance and profit based incentives to bid or preference systems allowing officers to decide lengths of trips and work for more efficient rosters (i.e. a based officer might elect to spend more time "on the road" flying regional trips to decrease commutes taking some of the burden off HKG crews. Or scheduling consistent on clock rosters; even making swaps more manageable). Things which could be an easy win-win for everyone if a problem solving approach were taken instead of management by authoritarian autocracy. Companies which practice win-win and SOME forms of give and take make money in competitive markets; companies which practice scorched earth, well poisoning, and management by fear and intimidation will fail.
From an economics perspective, no one WANTS a fight--in the short term it will cost both us and the Company money. But sometimes one HAS to fight and there's every indication (by the complete lack of negotiation on the part of the company, the punitive bad-faith actions, its legal track record, and history) we will have to fight unless we want to see a situation much worse than the status quo. Moreover, if we fail to do so now there's every indication not only will we have to live with a horrible--and shifting to the worse--contract for the rest of our careers, but also the AOA and any collective input we might have had toward our future will probably fall apart. This has nothing to do with with anger, resentments, frustration or really feelings in any way (although they might be useful to some in actually getting ready to ACT on something)--it's a rational analysis of the situation which, for better or worse, is likely going to REQUIRE a fight.
If a fight is required we will never--in my lifetime at least--be in a better position to do it than we are now.
Few things in life worthwhile are gained without hard work. Hopefully the Company will realize we collectively have the resolve and staying power to force a just contract if need be and will act as rational adults bargaining in good faith. I don't think this will happen and in any case believe we need be prepared to collectively force it to.
Last edited by Shep69; 7th May 2014 at 12:11.