Details on Delta TA
06-02-2015, 11:41 AM
#5371
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,133
our fatal flaw
Our fatal flaw: the appearance of memrat. Management knows we are a rubber stamp on the MECs TA. Memrat has never overturned a MEC decision. Some say this is proof of the system, some say this narrows the focus to just 10 votes. I say membership review is never a bad thing prior to really committing to the deal. I think if it’s good enough to cause a vote at the MEC its good enough for the membership to have the language and provide their reps with a direct opinion of the work done. Sadly, this is not our process.
Beware the rush job!
From Contrails 2:
MEC Ratification of the TA is next. Only by approval of the MEC can a TA proceed to MEMRAT. The MEC reviews and considers the terms of the TA for at least seven days (or less if they choose). For the MEC, the direction they gave the negotiators to achieve the TA is the normal standard in assessing its fitness for MEMRAT. During this time the TA is not released to the membership, and if the TA is rejected by the MEC, it is returned to the negotiators without review by the membership. Under our present governance, you will never vote on the merits of an agreement that fails to pass the MEC. If the MEC approves the TA, it will then be sent to the pilot group for review and ratification.
Or less if they choose!
You will never see what or if anything was rejected!
Under our current governance you will never vote on, or see, or give feedback on, or be informed in any way of the merits of an agreement prior to a vote by the MEC.
You the membership will never see language until after it's a TA endorsed by the MEC. Too late to realistically stop. When this vote occurs there needs to be full transparency. Perhaps a release of the negotiating notes is required. Or a change to our governance. For now we can only trust but not verify. You have my trust, but I feel it wasn’t given.
I hope it is earned.
I hope it is earned!
Beware the rush job!
From Contrails 2:
MEC Ratification of the TA is next. Only by approval of the MEC can a TA proceed to MEMRAT. The MEC reviews and considers the terms of the TA for at least seven days (or less if they choose). For the MEC, the direction they gave the negotiators to achieve the TA is the normal standard in assessing its fitness for MEMRAT. During this time the TA is not released to the membership, and if the TA is rejected by the MEC, it is returned to the negotiators without review by the membership. Under our present governance, you will never vote on the merits of an agreement that fails to pass the MEC. If the MEC approves the TA, it will then be sent to the pilot group for review and ratification.
Or less if they choose!
You will never see what or if anything was rejected!
Under our current governance you will never vote on, or see, or give feedback on, or be informed in any way of the merits of an agreement prior to a vote by the MEC.
You the membership will never see language until after it's a TA endorsed by the MEC. Too late to realistically stop. When this vote occurs there needs to be full transparency. Perhaps a release of the negotiating notes is required. Or a change to our governance. For now we can only trust but not verify. You have my trust, but I feel it wasn’t given.
I hope it is earned.
I hope it is earned!
06-02-2015, 12:53 PM
#5372
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by notEnuf
Our fatal flaw: the appearance of memrat. Management knows we are a rubber stamp on the MECs TA. Memrat has never overturned a MEC decision. Some say this is proof of the system, some say this narrows the focus to just 10 votes. I say membership review is never a bad thing prior to really committing to the deal. I think if it’s good enough to cause a vote at the MEC its good enough for the membership to have the language and provide their reps with a direct opinion of the work done. Sadly, this is not our process.
Beware the rush job!
From Contrails 2:
MEC Ratification of the TA is next. Only by approval of the MEC can a TA proceed to MEMRAT. The MEC reviews and considers the terms of the TA for at least seven days (or less if they choose). For the MEC, the direction they gave the negotiators to achieve the TA is the normal standard in assessing its fitness for MEMRAT. During this time the TA is not released to the membership, and if the TA is rejected by the MEC, it is returned to the negotiators without review by the membership. Under our present governance, you will never vote on the merits of an agreement that fails to pass the MEC. If the MEC approves the TA, it will then be sent to the pilot group for review and ratification.
Or less if they choose!
You will never see what or if anything was rejected!
Under our current governance you will never vote on, or see, or give feedback on, or be informed in any way of the merits of an agreement prior to a vote by the MEC.
You the membership will never see language until after it's a TA endorsed by the MEC. Too late to realistically stop. When this vote occurs there needs to be full transparency. Perhaps a release of the negotiating notes is required. Or a change to our governance. For now we can only trust but not verify. You have my trust, but I feel it wasn’t given.
I hope it is earned.
I hope it is earned!
Beware the rush job!
From Contrails 2:
MEC Ratification of the TA is next. Only by approval of the MEC can a TA proceed to MEMRAT. The MEC reviews and considers the terms of the TA for at least seven days (or less if they choose). For the MEC, the direction they gave the negotiators to achieve the TA is the normal standard in assessing its fitness for MEMRAT. During this time the TA is not released to the membership, and if the TA is rejected by the MEC, it is returned to the negotiators without review by the membership. Under our present governance, you will never vote on the merits of an agreement that fails to pass the MEC. If the MEC approves the TA, it will then be sent to the pilot group for review and ratification.
Or less if they choose!
You will never see what or if anything was rejected!
Under our current governance you will never vote on, or see, or give feedback on, or be informed in any way of the merits of an agreement prior to a vote by the MEC.
You the membership will never see language until after it's a TA endorsed by the MEC. Too late to realistically stop. When this vote occurs there needs to be full transparency. Perhaps a release of the negotiating notes is required. Or a change to our governance. For now we can only trust but not verify. You have my trust, but I feel it wasn’t given.
I hope it is earned.
I hope it is earned!
Another point....and i'll be told by the regime to put on my tin foil hat... without transparency and no way to verify, how do we know DALPA operatives aren't messing with the vote? After all, they have their marching orders. They want it to pass. They want to be able point to the fact it passed as "The majority has spoken" to quiet the heard. How do we know the majority has spoken? How do we know there hasn't been vote tampering? The handful of guys conducting the vote already think they know better than the minions what is good for the minions. There's a real danger here.
06-02-2015, 01:50 PM
#5373
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by scambo1
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I think you answered your own question. DALPA does the survey and gets their reference points...DONE. Now the membership is out of the loop until TA time.
I'm not going to go all in on cost neutral here, but in c12, do you think people asked to trade profit sharing? Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe the 717s weren't coming? Do you believe CDOs were at the "direction of the pilots?"
The rank and file, IMO, are seen as rabble to too many at the higher levels of D/ALPA. Too easy to control using fear and doubt. My opinion is that the survey is summarily disregarded by many after openers are exchanged...instead of being used as a touch stone during negotiations. Dissenters to this approach and dissenters to the company want list are attacked and shouted down then, later drummed out.
I haven't flown with anyone who thinks concessions in any form are acceptable. Most of the guys I fly with believe firmly that the company should max our 401ks every year. My microcosm may or may not be reflective of the wants of a majority of pilots.
Short story long, trust but verify hasn't worked, in my view, for a long time.
I'm not going to go all in on cost neutral here, but in c12, do you think people asked to trade profit sharing? Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe the 717s weren't coming? Do you believe CDOs were at the "direction of the pilots?"
The rank and file, IMO, are seen as rabble to too many at the higher levels of D/ALPA. Too easy to control using fear and doubt. My opinion is that the survey is summarily disregarded by many after openers are exchanged...instead of being used as a touch stone during negotiations. Dissenters to this approach and dissenters to the company want list are attacked and shouted down then, later drummed out.
I haven't flown with anyone who thinks concessions in any form are acceptable. Most of the guys I fly with believe firmly that the company should max our 401ks every year. My microcosm may or may not be reflective of the wants of a majority of pilots.
Short story long, trust but verify hasn't worked, in my view, for a long time.
I also agree that there's absolutely no need for any meaningful concessions. We made enough concessions (mainly forced) in the last 15 years for 2 careers. Tweaks are going to be on the table as the price of negotiations. Enjoying Umphrey's McGee by the way. Thanks.
06-02-2015, 03:29 PM
#5374
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,133
Doom and gloom
You heard it here first. HOT off the presses.
The Martians are coming! The Martians are coming!
Run for the hills! Run for the hills!
Delta Air Lines, Inc. - Delta Reports Financial and Operating Performance for May 2015
Pressure tactic circa 1992, 2005, etc. It's standard in the playbook. This time the worst they can say is the ink level is low in the money printing machine. No one is trying to buy our machine and call it US AIR or threatening to take it apart piece by piece. Gut check time, maybe this will be a real sect. 6 negotiation.
Now we will see this used to create panic and then line us up in a nice single file. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll wait for Q2 results.
If you haven't been on this ride before, hang on because its bumpy and there may be some blood spilled. Boo! (scare ya?) I know that was cruel, sorry. But really some one call 911 the champagne is getting flat.
The Martians are coming! The Martians are coming!
Run for the hills! Run for the hills!
Delta Air Lines, Inc. - Delta Reports Financial and Operating Performance for May 2015
Pressure tactic circa 1992, 2005, etc. It's standard in the playbook. This time the worst they can say is the ink level is low in the money printing machine. No one is trying to buy our machine and call it US AIR or threatening to take it apart piece by piece. Gut check time, maybe this will be a real sect. 6 negotiation.
Now we will see this used to create panic and then line us up in a nice single file. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll wait for Q2 results.
If you haven't been on this ride before, hang on because its bumpy and there may be some blood spilled. Boo! (scare ya?) I know that was cruel, sorry. But really some one call 911 the champagne is getting flat.
06-02-2015, 04:06 PM
#5375
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,133
...more to come. Spool your own post or calm the masses? Sorry it's a pride of ownership thing. Continue the hysteria. I'm right here for you. We'll get through this together I promise.
06-02-2015, 07:41 PM
#5376
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
All good points. If this deal get's screwed up, these shortcomings need to be addressed in whatever future organization ends up representing this pilot group.
Another point....and i'll be told by the regime to put on my tin foil hat... without transparency and no way to verify, how do we know DALPA operatives aren't messing with the vote? After all, they have their marching orders. They want it to pass. They want to be able point to the fact it passed as "The majority has spoken" to quiet the heard. How do we know the majority has spoken? How do we know there hasn't been vote tampering? The handful of guys conducting the vote already think they know better than the minions what is good for the minions. There's a real danger here.
Another point....and i'll be told by the regime to put on my tin foil hat... without transparency and no way to verify, how do we know DALPA operatives aren't messing with the vote? After all, they have their marching orders. They want it to pass. They want to be able point to the fact it passed as "The majority has spoken" to quiet the heard. How do we know the majority has spoken? How do we know there hasn't been vote tampering? The handful of guys conducting the vote already think they know better than the minions what is good for the minions. There's a real danger here.
Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.
Carl
06-02-2015, 08:24 PM
#5377
Weekend and Holiday Pilot
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Sippin' at the Troubadour
Posts: 1,141
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Really great idea was recently proffered to handle that concern. The idea is that when your vote is confirmed, the system generates a random number series that becomes your ID for the vote. When voting ends, all the random ID numbers are generated with their (YES or NO) votes next to the ID. This way, each pilot could look up their vote ID number and make sure it matched, while nobody else could look up how you voted because they wouldn't know your randomly generated ID number.
Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.
Carl
Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.
Carl
06-02-2015, 08:33 PM
#5378
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Really great idea was recently proffered to handle that concern. The idea is that when your vote is confirmed, the system generates a random number series that becomes your ID for the vote. When voting ends, all the random ID numbers are generated with their (YES or NO) votes next to the ID. This way, each pilot could look up their vote ID number and make sure it matched, while nobody else could look up how you voted because they wouldn't know your randomly generated ID number.
Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.
Carl
Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.
Carl
06-02-2015, 09:11 PM
#5380
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: B777 Left
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by Grumble
Maybe Tim Clark would like to play by the same labor laws instead of withholding pay from pilots who have no Union or labor laws for protection. Allow flight attendants to fly past age 27. Let employees unionize, if things are so great he shouldn't need to. The human rights violations of these countries are well documented. These airlines are nothing more than ego driven status symbols of the royal families that own them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
