Atlanta Council 44 Election Letter
#41
The company already had a ton of them on order and apparently the NMB seemed to think it was reasonable to allow them to take those on order.
There were actually quite a few new restrictions put in place that were not previously there, but they were also contingent on the company’s profitability etc.
So, there were no concessions at all in C2K in scope that I am aware of but just not getting everything that you “expected” in terms of scope.
FYI, RJ scope was the reason I voted no, but after hearing how the NMB viewed things, I am not sure we would have won that battle. I was also surprised how many pilots just didn’t care about it either.
Last edited by RonRicco; 08-21-2018 at 07:42 AM. Reason: Typing from iphone
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,634
“Sneak in a DB” really?
Nice try. I need NOTHING for me. Hired in 1985 and knew I would lose my pension in 1986. My retirement is fine thank you.
Would I like to see some repair for our pilots in their 50s with less than $1000 per month in frozen or PBGC benefits? Yes.
Do I support major gains in retirement for all Delta pilots in C2019? Yes! And we will attain them.
With regard to concessions, you are talking from both sides of your mouth.
Let’s be clear, you believe concessions are necessary to make a deal. It’s in your DNA. That’s fine.
I do not.
I would love to hear your comments and opinion on the upcoming Council 20 elections. You are paying thousands in dues money and these reps will affect the outcome.
Now if we can just get some pro management pilots to run in Detroit. I think we have 5 or 6.
Nice try. I need NOTHING for me. Hired in 1985 and knew I would lose my pension in 1986. My retirement is fine thank you.
Would I like to see some repair for our pilots in their 50s with less than $1000 per month in frozen or PBGC benefits? Yes.
Do I support major gains in retirement for all Delta pilots in C2019? Yes! And we will attain them.
With regard to concessions, you are talking from both sides of your mouth.
Let’s be clear, you believe concessions are necessary to make a deal. It’s in your DNA. That’s fine.
I do not.
I would love to hear your comments and opinion on the upcoming Council 20 elections. You are paying thousands in dues money and these reps will affect the outcome.
Now if we can just get some pro management pilots to run in Detroit. I think we have 5 or 6.
You believe as long as I say "the company makes BILLIONS...", I can finish that sentence with anything that comes to mind.
Its fine, its in your DNA.
We can go back and forth with hyperbole all day, but this is just a side show, gzsg.
I dont comment on C20 elections because I am not a local and I dont go to DTW meetings. I believe the pilots there know best on how to run their own council and elect their own reps.
Last edited by Planetrain; 08-21-2018 at 08:36 AM.
#43
I doubt that anyone believes in a clean sweep. What you must do is pad your opener with some items you can sacrifice in order to “protect essential.” Picture the ablative heat shield on Apollo capsules.
#44
Let's be clear. You believe contract negotiations mean pilots get every item on their list and management gets nothing. You are sure the NMB agrees or is powerless because should management get a single item, it is a concessnionary contract and must be voted no. You are sure this is the path to the most money and QOL for the pilot group. You would rather the score be 3-0 with extra innings than 10-2 because management-shutout trumps net gain.
You believe as long as I say "the company makes BILLIONS...", I can finish that sentence with anything that comes to mind.
Its fine, its in your DNA.
We can go back and forth with hyperbole all day, but this is just a side show, gzsg.
I dont comment on C20 elections because I am not a local and I dont go to DTW meetings. I believe the pilots there know best on how to run their own council and elect their own reps.
You believe as long as I say "the company makes BILLIONS...", I can finish that sentence with anything that comes to mind.
Its fine, its in your DNA.
We can go back and forth with hyperbole all day, but this is just a side show, gzsg.
I dont comment on C20 elections because I am not a local and I dont go to DTW meetings. I believe the pilots there know best on how to run their own council and elect their own reps.
#45
Denny
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,394
With $240 billion on hand they could easily afford all the above. Why don't they? Because as Steve Ballmer (CEO of Microsoft after Bill Gates) once famously told his employees after they asked a similar question, "that's not your money, that's the shareholders' money."
I don't agree with that AT ALL, but it's the mindset our MEC and negotiatiors have to deal with when trying to extract a bigger piece of pie for the pilots group.
#47
More money for the shareholders is a result of higher profits. Higher profits means bigger Profit Sharing checks for us. The Delta PWA became the best pilot contract in the world due to a Union that had a philosophy of going for solid base hits instead of swinging wildly looking for a “home run”. Profit sharing is one of those swings for a base hit happened to make strong contact and resulted in a Home Run.
#48
Quality of Lifer
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: M88A
Posts: 672
I'm generally on board with what they wrote, but this section concerns me:
"While we do not believe one demographic should gain at the expense of any other, there are a number of pilots on our seniority list who have experienced unacceptable hardships and now face a tremendous shortfall in retirement."
It sure sounds like they do, indeed, want a certain demographic group to gain at the expense of others based on their "unacceptable hardships". Flame away, but nearly everyone on the seniority list has had a sh*t sandwich of some variety during the lost decade. Why cater to 700-800 who are somehow "more screwed" than everyone else?
1. Timing is everthing
2. Life isn't fair
3. There is no justice
"While we do not believe one demographic should gain at the expense of any other, there are a number of pilots on our seniority list who have experienced unacceptable hardships and now face a tremendous shortfall in retirement."
It sure sounds like they do, indeed, want a certain demographic group to gain at the expense of others based on their "unacceptable hardships". Flame away, but nearly everyone on the seniority list has had a sh*t sandwich of some variety during the lost decade. Why cater to 700-800 who are somehow "more screwed" than everyone else?
1. Timing is everthing
2. Life isn't fair
3. There is no justice
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: Captain
Posts: 64
The same guys said they were for "unity" during the last elections. Since then, they had two folks get recalled (one running again), and two others who are half the our current dysfunctional LEC.
One of them is running for Captain rep, while he has been at Delta less-than 3 years. Probably a smart guy, but has zero clue about anything we have been through for the past 20 years before he got here. He was getting a mandatory displacement, so he bid the only category he could still hold captain (for now). Not so he could stay in the left seat, but so he could run for ALPA Captain Rep. That scares me.
#50
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: Captain
Posts: 64
[QUOTE=Hillbilly;2658948]
Very true. In my opinion, all 4 of them bear some responsibility for the dysfunction and I wouldn’t vote for any one of them. Jimmy was recalled once already and I’ll never forget being told about how he asked to change his vote, after the voting was complete, when the MEC was voting on whether or not to send the TA to the membership for ratification. His inability to keep track of what is happening right in front of him for what was arguably the most important vote he would ever cast as a rep makes him a no for me as well.
^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!
Very true. In my opinion, all 4 of them bear some responsibility for the dysfunction and I wouldn’t vote for any one of them. Jimmy was recalled once already and I’ll never forget being told about how he asked to change his vote, after the voting was complete, when the MEC was voting on whether or not to send the TA to the membership for ratification. His inability to keep track of what is happening right in front of him for what was arguably the most important vote he would ever cast as a rep makes him a no for me as well.
^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post