|
|
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1198459)
Your credibility is shot. Give it a rest already. You just cant sell this stinker as is. You have already overleveraged your opinion which routinely is out of sync with sharper, more intellectually honest minds. Take your company sales pitch elsewhere.
This board is a marketplace for ideas. Don't buy what you don't like, or refute it and enjoy the contest. Jefferson was right when he ripped off Voltaire and said something to the effect of "I disagree with you, but will defend to my death your right to say it." |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198484)
You've been given the answer before, groundskeeper. Delta is going to spend money on DCI, either through refleeting or maintenance/grounding/renegotiation.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198484)
The question before you is do you want Delta pilots to benefit from that expenditure or not?
Carl |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1198488)
Your flaw is that you assume that the costs for refleeting or M/G/ReN are the same and balanced. They are not.
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1198452)
First, this forum and the ALPA forum are in no way indicative of the pilot group. On this forum Scope is by far the biggest issue and in the contract survey it was far behind pay. So reading this forum will not give you an accurate view of the pilot group.
It's not just money, it's all the rest. Please tell me how a negotiation will end where only one side wins. We won concessions from Delta even in bankruptcy with a gun to our head. So if you are waiting for some negotiation where only one side's issues are addressed then you better get used to this contract because you will retire under it. If you walk into the NMB and demand only concessions from the company, they will pat you on the head and tell you to come back when you are serious. Please go see the experience of the APA and USAPA for excellent examples of this type of demand bargaining. Our reserve system is industry leading, our sick leave is industry leading. Our pay is industry leading. Our scope is ground breaking in the control we have over the DCI operation and its relation to mainline. Look at what you demand and what the company is offering in the TA from the perspective of an outside observer (the NMB) and not from the perspective of a pilot that is shooting for the perfect contract. We are already far ahead of our major competitors and about to lap the field. Do you think the NMB will support us moving even further out or will they put us on ice? No one can guarantee you some growth or upward movement. We have laid the foundation to ensure mainline growth in a neutral or even slightly down economic environment. Past that, you will never have a guarantee. You don't have it now and you won't ever in the future. You will never convince a neutral third party that you have to have that either. So you are trying to gauge this in light of some perfect contract you imagine. I say you should gauge it in light of how you could force that perfect contract. That will only happen if the NMB allows us to strike. Even if you believe they would allow a strike, they have shown time and again that the type of contract you seek is unavailable until the fiery end of humanity. How many years of watching pilots getting put in the naughty corner will it take for people to learn how to not go to the naughty corner. Airways 7, American 6, Continental 4, United 3. That's twenty years of experience right there. Go back and read the NMB presentation on the ALPA website. She was giving you a road map to contract success and warning you how to stay out of the naughty corner. Negotiate, zone of reasonableness, listen to your professionals, 29 months in mediation. The railroads consolidated like the airlines are now except it was in the 1990's. Since then, no strikes multiple PEB's. Why would she take the time to point that out to us? Just interesting fun facts or a warning of what's to come? It seems to me that most on this board think she was joking. She has no agenda to lower your expectations, she is giving advice and has the hammer to make you follow her advice. Maybe we really do need four years on ice to learn our lesson. Expensive lesson, in money, scope, and everything else. Maybe you are right and it's just our turn to touch that stove and see how hot it is. It seems as though you have to make up things or put words in my mouth to make counter-arguments against my posts. * I never said I wanted a perfect contract. * I never said I wanted guaranteed growth. * I never said one side had to "win." My point was contained in the middle of my post, witch you missed, which tells me I should try to shorten my posts.
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1198301)
Now, not only is there huge confusion about holes in the scope clause, enforceability, and carve outs, but there are also work rule changes that insure the company can do the same job with less pilots.
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1198301)
More than money, Delta pilots are worried about their jobs. What good does a huge pay-raise do anyway if you are bidding a category or two lower aircraft? We are not blind, but because we have good memories, we are understandably gun shy.
1.) Adding more 70 seat RJ's to be flown by non-Delta pilots 2.) Increasing pilot productivity to the point where it requires fewer Delta pilots. 3.) Required doctor notes after your second sick call for widebody pilots. 4.) Carve outs for Republic type flying. These are things I don't remember being contained in the survey. These are things pilots assumed (yes, it's an opening) our union would never consider in this type of negotiating environment. If these concessions were not in the TA, I would venture to say it would pass easily. But, they are there and pilots are not happy about them being there. Like I said, we are worried about our jobs. We don't need guarantees for advancement, but we sure as hell don't want to vote away the small advancements we had coming to us. -- (Retirements / Work rules.) Once again, that seems to be what a lot of people are worried about. I think the road shows will be the make or break factor on whether or not the TA passes. This is a smart but skeptical pilot group. So, if there are holes in the protections that assure Delta pilots don't get screwed on staffing or advancement, or work rules, or upcoming retirements, I would guess TA passage is in trouble, because word of a bad product travels quickly. But, if the presenters can convince people that those holes are plugged, the TA will pass. But, I will point out that the people on this board and the ALPA board ARE representative of the pilot group (no matter what pineapple says.), very intelligent, very engaged, and very skeptical. So, hows it going so far? We will see which is which. |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1198488)
Your flaw is that you assume that the costs and benefits for refleeting vs. M/G/ReN are the same and balanced. They are not.
The path without us is slower and has greater risk, but the maximum costs are very defined for management. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1198494)
So why did the NC shake hands on a cost neutral contract that took away things to fund its very few benefits? This TA provides protections against your aircraft being JV'd out of production. This TA is cost neutral only in the sense that Delta money was taken from different parts of the company that will now be paid to pilots. There's no reason to continue to be so disingenuous. This has been explained, and Bar even provided Campbell's quote in context. You can't handle the truth. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198502)
For a guy like you Carl this TA will bring over $100,000 additional dollars in during the 3 years after the amendable date compared to our current book.
This TA provides protections against your aircraft being JV'd out of production. This TA is cost neutral only in the sense that Delta money was taken from different parts of the company that will now be paid to pilots. There's no reason to continue to be so disingenuous. This has been explained, and Bar even provided Campbell's quote in context. You can't handle the truth. Now we can debate whether the loss of G/S's is a good or bad thing, but if the flying is done with fewer pilots at a lower effective rate.... |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1198473)
I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death.
-Leonardo da Vinci -Leonardo di Caprio Titanic (1997) |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198500)
You are absolutely correct. Working with us to facilitate refleeting was much faster, somewhat lower cost and had less risk for Delta management. Using that leverage we concluded a TA that greatly enhanced scope and got a 12.8% rate increase payable on the day after our current contract amendable date, with 4% of that paid 6 months early, as well as a whole bunch of other contract improvements.
The path without us is slower and has greater risk, but the maximum costs are very defined for management. Leverage that was apparently not used effectively enough. First, it is not truly 12.8%. DALPA gave up 33% of profit sharing on the eve of the company's self proclaimed era of substanial profits. You need to back that out of your 12.8% number. The rest 3 & 3 will likely not even match inflation. Unlike what is proclaimed in the Section 6 Opener document, "significantly increase hourly rates of pay" did not happen. While we are at it, what happened to the other desired improvements that did not materialize. * MED pay * Holiday pay * Int'l pay for all destinations outside of the 48 Basically, this TA is one sided. It benefits the company more than it does the pilots. They have already proclaimed how it is cost neutral and allows the further reduction of their long term debit toward their under 10 billion number. This TA needs to be reworked either before the vote, or, it will have to be if it fails. It would not take a giant stretch to improve it. Regardless, I have not seen more angry people since the Halloween Matrix. |
Originally Posted by DoubleTrouble
(Post 1198505)
With the productivity improvements (increased ALV, reserves flying ALV + 15, 30 day months all summer, reserves selling X days and buying SC, etc) it is quite possible that greenslips are rare/gone. It is quite possible that some pilots will now fly the same amount of block hours with a far lower W-2.
Now we can debate whether the loss of G/S's is a good or bad thing, but if the flying is done with fewer pilots at a lower effective rate.... I'm not trying to be argumentative here. We can debate the possibilities, but how about we put some probabilities and context with them? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands