ATL FO Rep says a No vote is easy
07-01-2015, 09:58 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
ATL FO Rep says a No vote is easy
His words: A No vote is an "angry" response and "avoids responsibility." He goes on to explain why he's afraid to pass up this TA. Most impressive is how he now thinks trading PS is so much better after the company pushed for the idea. Too bad he doesn't advocate for pilot initiated needs with as much fervor.
--------------------------
Council 44 FO REP Perspective
Ten years ago, inept management armed with a legion of consultants, followed the path of United in stripping employees of their career equity in the companies they helped build. Between now and July 10th we have the choice to vote for a Tentative Agreement that increases our compensation above the pre-bankruptcy high, and also includes a 16% contribution to our D.C. plan while providing the industry’s best scope, work rules and sick leave.
As your Rep, and someone who has been part of this process from the beginning, an angry “no” is easy. Voting no, avoids responsibility. “No” shields one from the angry voices of those who seek justice for events a decade ago. “No” does not require a complex explanation of scope provisions, work rules and profit sharing conversion. “No” is an easily defensible bullet point. “No” did not let you choose to decide your path, to weigh the pros and cons of this agreement, and the ramifications of an up or down vote.
When we were briefed on this agreement prior to the end of negotiations what we saw did not entail everything we wanted. Like some of you, we recoiled at the notion of any “quids” in this negotiation. Your MEC, including Council 44 leadership, said “no” several times, sending the negotiators back against the Company’s “best, last, offer.” Nothing moved and in the face of decreasing near-term revenue guidance, management began indicating they felt they had “over-bought.”
At that dead lock it was natural to consider alternate plans to the negotiated result. UPS, FedEx and Southwest airlines have made nearly no headway in NMB negotiations despite the success of their companies. Threatening destruction of the special relationship Southwest had with its pilots - which helped build that company - has not forced their management to agree to a negotiated settlement. AMR and UAL have contracts that are renegotiable in 2018 and 2020 respectively with cost structures below ours. Waiting for any of these carriers to help raise the average foregoes $1.1 billion to you collectively, and least $125,000 of your money individually (on average over the next three years). If you desire to use history as your lesson then consider that not one airline in the current era has started negotiations on top, turned down a TA, gone back and done better; none. Inside the Delta network one airline bucked the business plan and is gone. Those who think a no vote just leverages management capitulation should consider Expressjet’s strong 83% no vote on Jan 14, 2014. Those pilots are still nowhere near an agreement.
Our negotiations resulted in a 2 and 1Ž2 day (on average) reduction to the sick leave triggers, resulted in gains in FAA leave, disability income offset removal after 36 months, a disability account, and Individual Vacation Days. The modifications to 23.G.5 will affect about 1.7% of all rotations and result in about 64 more reserves systemwide. We gained a better reserve-required formula, spill over trip protections and reroute protections. Ultimately, the extra few reserves that are created by the 23.G.5 removal will allow greater ability to swap or drop trips due to the fact that all rotations are still biddable, and remain part of the staffing formula, unlike other similar programs in the industry.
The Profit Sharing modification amounted to half of the profit sharing we get from 2.5-6.0 Billion dollars, or about 5.74% of current income, and was reallocated at a slight premium into pay at 6%. Pay then triggers additional profit sharing. Because Delta bought this as equal, if not better value, you make more money on the profit sharing conversion and that pay is not dependent upon Delta’s making a profit.
Our scope improvements have been discussed in other council 44 communications. In this letter to you I will state it simply; this agreement results in more Delta flying being performed by more Delta pilots and establishes industry leading alter ego protections, which will likely be copied throughout the industry.
Other changes were driven directly by pilots’ requests to improve their quality of life. Examples include improving rotation construction, significant improvements to the current reroute language, leveling short call assignments, premium pay for end of month carry over trips, better crew meal language, and credit towards reserve guarantee if unused on short call, as well improved training protections, and two day advance coverage for early rotations. We got more CQ and Vacation pay. Some pilots were very concerned about their privacy, so improvements were made in the confidentiality and handling of pilot medical data. None of those provisions now exist in our PWA.
We can choose to hit the “no” button, kill forward momentum and re-engage. If so, we should choose objectively, not emotionally. We should consider, is there value to remaining engaged in a business plan? In our very dynamic world where the next JV is setting up shop in Mexico, and Middle East carriers are disrupting the marketplace, are there still tangible benefits to working together to solve problems for mutual pecuniary benefit?
Because this was a negotiation resulting in a compromise agreement, a great amount of consideration and analysis was required before the correct choice became clear. The smart money is on yes. We will be back at the table soon, to engage anywhere necessary to address opportunities and threats; always protecting and advancing Delta pilot careers, pay, working conditions, benefits and job security.
As a pilot who has over 24 years until the mandatory retirement age, and a major stake holder in this career, and airline, I am in favor of keeping the momentum going, continuing our post reorganization objective of being both smart and tough; effectively engaging for gain, adding value and improving quality of life at every opportunity, through continual negotiations. There is opportunity in front of us, and a “in favor” vote allows us to pick up this value and continue the momentum.
Respectfully,
DN
Council 44 First Officer Representative
--------------------------
Council 44 FO REP Perspective
Ten years ago, inept management armed with a legion of consultants, followed the path of United in stripping employees of their career equity in the companies they helped build. Between now and July 10th we have the choice to vote for a Tentative Agreement that increases our compensation above the pre-bankruptcy high, and also includes a 16% contribution to our D.C. plan while providing the industry’s best scope, work rules and sick leave.
As your Rep, and someone who has been part of this process from the beginning, an angry “no” is easy. Voting no, avoids responsibility. “No” shields one from the angry voices of those who seek justice for events a decade ago. “No” does not require a complex explanation of scope provisions, work rules and profit sharing conversion. “No” is an easily defensible bullet point. “No” did not let you choose to decide your path, to weigh the pros and cons of this agreement, and the ramifications of an up or down vote.
When we were briefed on this agreement prior to the end of negotiations what we saw did not entail everything we wanted. Like some of you, we recoiled at the notion of any “quids” in this negotiation. Your MEC, including Council 44 leadership, said “no” several times, sending the negotiators back against the Company’s “best, last, offer.” Nothing moved and in the face of decreasing near-term revenue guidance, management began indicating they felt they had “over-bought.”
At that dead lock it was natural to consider alternate plans to the negotiated result. UPS, FedEx and Southwest airlines have made nearly no headway in NMB negotiations despite the success of their companies. Threatening destruction of the special relationship Southwest had with its pilots - which helped build that company - has not forced their management to agree to a negotiated settlement. AMR and UAL have contracts that are renegotiable in 2018 and 2020 respectively with cost structures below ours. Waiting for any of these carriers to help raise the average foregoes $1.1 billion to you collectively, and least $125,000 of your money individually (on average over the next three years). If you desire to use history as your lesson then consider that not one airline in the current era has started negotiations on top, turned down a TA, gone back and done better; none. Inside the Delta network one airline bucked the business plan and is gone. Those who think a no vote just leverages management capitulation should consider Expressjet’s strong 83% no vote on Jan 14, 2014. Those pilots are still nowhere near an agreement.
Our negotiations resulted in a 2 and 1Ž2 day (on average) reduction to the sick leave triggers, resulted in gains in FAA leave, disability income offset removal after 36 months, a disability account, and Individual Vacation Days. The modifications to 23.G.5 will affect about 1.7% of all rotations and result in about 64 more reserves systemwide. We gained a better reserve-required formula, spill over trip protections and reroute protections. Ultimately, the extra few reserves that are created by the 23.G.5 removal will allow greater ability to swap or drop trips due to the fact that all rotations are still biddable, and remain part of the staffing formula, unlike other similar programs in the industry.
The Profit Sharing modification amounted to half of the profit sharing we get from 2.5-6.0 Billion dollars, or about 5.74% of current income, and was reallocated at a slight premium into pay at 6%. Pay then triggers additional profit sharing. Because Delta bought this as equal, if not better value, you make more money on the profit sharing conversion and that pay is not dependent upon Delta’s making a profit.
Our scope improvements have been discussed in other council 44 communications. In this letter to you I will state it simply; this agreement results in more Delta flying being performed by more Delta pilots and establishes industry leading alter ego protections, which will likely be copied throughout the industry.
Other changes were driven directly by pilots’ requests to improve their quality of life. Examples include improving rotation construction, significant improvements to the current reroute language, leveling short call assignments, premium pay for end of month carry over trips, better crew meal language, and credit towards reserve guarantee if unused on short call, as well improved training protections, and two day advance coverage for early rotations. We got more CQ and Vacation pay. Some pilots were very concerned about their privacy, so improvements were made in the confidentiality and handling of pilot medical data. None of those provisions now exist in our PWA.
We can choose to hit the “no” button, kill forward momentum and re-engage. If so, we should choose objectively, not emotionally. We should consider, is there value to remaining engaged in a business plan? In our very dynamic world where the next JV is setting up shop in Mexico, and Middle East carriers are disrupting the marketplace, are there still tangible benefits to working together to solve problems for mutual pecuniary benefit?
Because this was a negotiation resulting in a compromise agreement, a great amount of consideration and analysis was required before the correct choice became clear. The smart money is on yes. We will be back at the table soon, to engage anywhere necessary to address opportunities and threats; always protecting and advancing Delta pilot careers, pay, working conditions, benefits and job security.
As a pilot who has over 24 years until the mandatory retirement age, and a major stake holder in this career, and airline, I am in favor of keeping the momentum going, continuing our post reorganization objective of being both smart and tough; effectively engaging for gain, adding value and improving quality of life at every opportunity, through continual negotiations. There is opportunity in front of us, and a “in favor” vote allows us to pick up this value and continue the momentum.
Respectfully,
DN
Council 44 First Officer Representative
07-01-2015, 10:07 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,100
You cant blame him..He has a nice easy job with ALPA, and probably wants a career in ALPA. He stays home every night and holidays, and he doesn't want to lose it. A recall would mean he has to come back to the line as a junior FO..
07-01-2015, 10:41 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by 3 green
You cant blame him..He has a nice easy job with ALPA, and probably wants a career in ALPA. He stays home every night and holidays, and he doesn't want to lose it. A recall would mean he has to come back to the line as a junior FO..
I would enjoy reading his letter of resignation.
07-01-2015, 10:45 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 73NA
Posts: 49
So, as I understand it, if I disagree with c44 FO Rep., it must be because I am irrational, angry, and emotional? Gee, I thought it was because I don't want a concessionary contract in a period of record profits. I thought it was because I bear some responsibility to my fellow commercial pilots (DAL and all others). I thought it was because my MEC promised that management would "bring their checkbook". I thought it was because it was time to take the high road, not the "easy" path to short-term instant gratification.
07-01-2015, 11:05 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
A no vote was very easy for me because of scope and work rules.
Very easy. Logging on to vote and getting the screen shot was the hardest part.
Very easy. Logging on to vote and getting the screen shot was the hardest part.
Me too. I wasn't angry in the least about voting No...I was angry with the product they put in front of us, but the only thing to do when presented with a crappy product is to vote no.
07-01-2015, 11:07 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Okay, if the MEC sent the NC back several times because what they brought forward was unacceptable, and this is what we got, then how bad was is this NC?
That answer your question?
07-01-2015, 11:14 AM
#10
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
Minor point, but our UAL contract is amendable January 2017 and our current contract is valued slightly higher than your current contract (not including PS). However, it is a compromised merger contract and should not be compared to the high level contract that you guys deserve in this environment.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
