|
|
Originally Posted by Humboldt
(Post 1197797)
contrails,
thank you, my wife and I will head to LAX and enjoy our first 747 flight, sounds stupid but I feel like a kid again. Humboldt Carl |
Originally Posted by contrails
(Post 1197805)
Done a lot of non-revving with a friend of mine who, after business class all over the world, still was excited the first time we took the whale!
The upper deck is fantastic if there's seats open -- two flight attendants for a very small number of pax. Of course, they also have to keep Carl Spackler happy up front!! http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DnPwaEn8aG...rayUnkempt.jpg Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1197842)
Not sure it was a handshake or a true TA. It is apparent after reading all of the reps positions on the subject that the product(TA) and associated pay was below direction. The nc and admin should have asked direction from the MEC before TAing it. They TAed the sucker with the entire MEC in ATL at a hotel. They were assembled and could have provided direction eight hours later. That my friends is the elephant in the room.
That's fine. Now we get to speak...or lose our right to. Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1197842)
Not sure it was a handshake or a true TA. It is apparent after reading all of the reps positions on the subject that the product(TA) and associated pay was below direction. The nc and admin should have asked direction from the MEC before TAing it. They TAed the sucker with the entire MEC in ATL at a hotel. They were assembled and could have provided direction eight hours later. That my friends is the elephant in the room.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1197796)
We have some strong leaders...and we had some not-so-strong. What I can't get beyond is at the tail of a rapid company push, we (collectivelly) accepted their first offer as being "all they'll be willing to offer."
I've been on the company side of this in another life and a negotiator....our acquiescence is startling. We took the first offer from a company that wanted to expedite negotiations. What, what, what? And we didn't go back with at least a cursory "no, they won't accept that" "how about this?" I'm not saying it can't get better....I'm saying how do we know? This is exactly what our guys did. This despite the letter from O'Malley stating we needed to let them show us what they can bring to this pilot group in the first section 6 in over a decade. And this is it? And dump it on the full MEC telling them it's a "fool's errand" to even attempt to go back for more? More than ZERO? This would be knee slapping funny if it wasn't so face palming embarrassing. If we say YES to this as a group, I don't see how the company could ever respect our resolve on anything. I can't imagine a more watershed event for Delta pilots than this one. Carl |
Originally Posted by CVG767A
(Post 1197065)
When the TA was initially released, my first reaction was HELLE NO. My main issue was--and is-- the pay rates. They are initially 6-7% below what I wanted. I took this as a personal affront. How dare they offer to pay us less than Southwest rates?
In reading this board, everyone seems to be mostly okay with the rates; scope is the big issue. This has caused me to reread Section 1. To me, it seems that scope is improved. The arguments on this board in support of the tentative scope clause seem to be more fact based, while the arguments against it seem to be more emotion based. Boomer's question about potential loopholes in Section 1 is, in my mind the central question. I strongly suspect I'm going to have to explore that one on my own in order to find an answer. Alfa, you make a lot of sense, but your condescending tone is going to turn people off to what you have to say. Carl, I took you off "ignore" after the TA came out. While you started with some good, cogent arguments, your posts have once again become little more than ranting, innuendo, and name-calling. You'll probably be back on my ignore list soon (not that it matters to you). Sailing, it seems like you're happy with everything but the rates. That's where I am. Is there more money available for that? Maybe. My concern is that we turn down this TA, and the NC is directed to go back to the company to improve scope...or sick leave...or something else that, in my opinion, was okay on the original TA. If these subsequent negotiations don't result in a TA, then we've passed up an improved contract for nothing. We end up getting the same deal two years from now. So now I'm left with deciding whether I'm going to play hardball just to put another $600/month (net) in my pay check. I'm increasingly thinking that the risk outweighs the reward. |
Carl, I'm reading the C20 Chairman's letter now. Does he mention in this letter that this TA is cost-neutral, or is that something he said?
|
DAL: "We'll park all the 50 seaters we don't need and get the 717s we can't refuse if you promise to allow us to have, oh, 70 more CRJ900s and not make us return a single CRJ700 or E170 as is required by the current PWA.
Oh and we need to exempt RAH from the RAH rule." DALPA: "Well the pilots won't like that, especialy those *******s on the internet." DAL: "Nah, just tell them you've got a new hard cap of 325 and 450." DALPA: "Wow good idea, new hard cap! That means no more after that!" DAL: "Well, thats not what I said, but go on, go tell them this is great and if they don't like it then you're dumb. We'll see ya'll next time." |
Originally Posted by CVG767A
(Post 1197931)
Carl, I'm reading the C20 Chairman's letter now. Does he mention in this letter that this TA is cost-neutral, or is that something he said?
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1197935)
Yes. What I've posted was his exact words. It's cost neutral to the company.
Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands