Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-14-2012, 04:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
[QUOTE=forgot to bid;1261015]Well, that didn't take long...
[quote]Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.
In turn, this increases the cost of commodities, which will pressure the profitability of businesses and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power, the firm said.
In April, Egan-Jones cuts the U.S. credit rating to "AA" from "AA+" with a negative watch, citing a lack of progress in cutting the mounting federal debt.
Moody's Investors Service [MCO 43.82
0.07 (+0.16%) 
] currently rates the United States Aaa, Fitch rates the country AAA, and Standard & Poor's rates the country AA-plus. All three of those ratings have a negative outlook.This is where simple math shows how ineffective this will be. The US Economy is 14 Trillion, the US Government Budget is 4 Trillion and the Fed is going to "stimulate" (read inflate and dilute the dollar) by $40 Billion a month - not much and the reason it hasn't worked in the past and won't work this time.
[quote]Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.
Getty Images
The Fed on Thursday said it would pump $40 billion into the U.S. economy each month until it saw a sustained upturn in the weak jobs market. (Read more: Fed's 'QE Infinity' — Four Things That Could Go Wrong)In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s real gross domestic product, but reduces the value of the dollar. In turn, this increases the cost of commodities, which will pressure the profitability of businesses and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power, the firm said.
In April, Egan-Jones cuts the U.S. credit rating to "AA" from "AA+" with a negative watch, citing a lack of progress in cutting the mounting federal debt.
Moody's Investors Service [MCO 43.82
0.07 (+0.16%) ] currently rates the United States Aaa, Fitch rates the country AAA, and Standard & Poor's rates the country AA-plus. All three of those ratings have a negative outlook.This is where simple math shows how ineffective this will be. The US Economy is 14 Trillion, the US Government Budget is 4 Trillion and the Fed is going to "stimulate" (read inflate and dilute the dollar) by $40 Billion a month - not much and the reason it hasn't worked in the past and won't work this time.
09-14-2012, 05:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Now I'm the one with the short time to reply.
So we're going to quibble on the definition of "is", Mr. Clinton? Fine. You don't understand the governance structure on which ALPA works. The MEC (collected local council reps) are the governing body. We have 19 of those reps at Delta. There are various policy methodologies (some senatorial, some roll call based) by which they exercise that power. They elect the MEC Chair - he works to execute their collective will. You elect the Reps, they elect their Chair. To recall the Chair, you must get a 2/3 majority of reps or a majority of reps and a roll call majority.
So you use an example of a Rep whose point of view was in the minority. The TA ratified 14-5 on the MEC. 94% of the pilots voted and ratified the TA by 62%-38%. Every single base voted in favor of the agreement.
What I'm reading is that you have a problem with majority rule.
But if you're serious, you'd find pilots in local bases who would recall reps that you believe "are the problem." You only need 10 reps and a majority of the roll call votes to make that happen. I have provided examples of it being done at least twice on our property.
You also have the option of starting a change to the policy manual and ALPA C&BL. If you're serious about change, start the process. We'll get a lot more debate (good) and you'll see if your opinion is in the majority.
btw, do you still support DPA?
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Hey 80, if supporting the Delta Pilots Charitable Fund is something you want to do, have at it, but you didn't lose your bet....:
So we're going to quibble on the definition of "is", Mr. Clinton? Fine. You don't understand the governance structure on which ALPA works. The MEC (collected local council reps) are the governing body. We have 19 of those reps at Delta. There are various policy methodologies (some senatorial, some roll call based) by which they exercise that power. They elect the MEC Chair - he works to execute their collective will. You elect the Reps, they elect their Chair. To recall the Chair, you must get a 2/3 majority of reps or a majority of reps and a roll call majority.
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Because again, what does recalling your rep have to do with recalling the MEC Chair if your Rep is not the problem? For instance, what if you're in C54 and you agree with your Vice Chair's stance on the TA and are faced with him saying this happened:
So you use an example of a Rep whose point of view was in the minority. The TA ratified 14-5 on the MEC. 94% of the pilots voted and ratified the TA by 62%-38%. Every single base voted in favor of the agreement.
What I'm reading is that you have a problem with majority rule.
But if you're serious, you'd find pilots in local bases who would recall reps that you believe "are the problem." You only need 10 reps and a majority of the roll call votes to make that happen. I have provided examples of it being done at least twice on our property.
You also have the option of starting a change to the policy manual and ALPA C&BL. If you're serious about change, start the process. We'll get a lot more debate (good) and you'll see if your opinion is in the majority.
btw, do you still support DPA?
09-14-2012, 05:16 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by contrails
Not sure about others in the region but for Emirates, O&D traffic is only 15% of their business.
09-14-2012, 05:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Sink r8
Interesting exchange between ftb and Slowplay.
It seems plausible to me that a situation can exist where the administration is allowed to circumvent the MEC, although not without a complicit MEC. More likely, I can imagine a sort of instutionalized setting, where the administration and the MEC work together to steer new reps into some sort of action or policy to keep the status quo going indefinitely.
In that case, if having elected MEC Chairmen is the solution, and we elect both the Chairman and the LEC Reps, and a conflict exists where the elected LEC reps want to remove an elected MEC Chairman... who should have the upper hand?
If the charge is that powerful MEC Chairmen are coercing the MEC, how does giving them more legitimacy through an election help?
It seems plausible to me that a situation can exist where the administration is allowed to circumvent the MEC, although not without a complicit MEC. More likely, I can imagine a sort of instutionalized setting, where the administration and the MEC work together to steer new reps into some sort of action or policy to keep the status quo going indefinitely.
In that case, if having elected MEC Chairmen is the solution, and we elect both the Chairman and the LEC Reps, and a conflict exists where the elected LEC reps want to remove an elected MEC Chairman... who should have the upper hand?
If the charge is that powerful MEC Chairmen are coercing the MEC, how does giving them more legitimacy through an election help?
Oh, you'd also have to have a complicit negotiating committee. They're elected by the MEC as well.
09-14-2012, 05:21 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
slow,
Are any of the most recent changes to the ALPA Constitution & By Laws available? The latest FastRead mentioned some changes were made. I sure hope needing MEMRAT for an assessment wasn't one of the changes.......
Are any of the most recent changes to the ALPA Constitution & By Laws available? The latest FastRead mentioned some changes were made. I sure hope needing MEMRAT for an assessment wasn't one of the changes.......
09-14-2012, 05:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
AA just imposed work rules on the APA. Anyone have any details?
Management's Overreach
We now know the extent of management's overreaching as they have rejected our contract and imposed the most onerous 1113 terms.
Going forward, here is what you can expect (not a complete list):
- Provide ZERO pension contributions: A Plan frozen. B Plan terminated and you will not be provided with any form of replacement company contribution pension plan. That's right, ZERO. Not 11%, ZERO.
- Duty Rig Decimation: G time – eliminate minimum day, average day = 4:15 vs. historic 5.0, E time eliminated, F time reduced and only starts after 29 hour layover.
- No new furlough protection.
- Unlimited large RJs at commuter carriers
- Massive codeshare with domestic carriers, well in excess of industry standard.
- Per sequence, all over-fly time will be reduced by any under-fly time occurring in the sequence.
- Night pay eliminated.
- Below industry standard pay banding, (eg. A319).
- No pay increases, locks in AA pilot pay well below industry standard and inflation indefinitely. Pay reductions when lost night pay and international pay are accounted for.
- No path to industry standard pay rates.
- Lines scheduled up to 87 hours.
- Reassignments to FARs.
- Flight time and duty time to FARs.
- Eliminate international pay for Caribbean, Hawaii and Mexico.
- Significantly increased medical premiums and co-pays.
- Elimination of company paid retiree medical.
- Significant reductions to the Long-Term Disability Plan.
If you're looking for motivation to be involved, we suggest you review the list above. Add up the reduction in total take home compensation, the extra days away from home and family, the captain and first officer job losses due to scope and work rule changes ― then reconsider your involvement level.
As we move forward, there will be APA events scheduled requiring your participation and commitment. It's time to be involved.
09-14-2012, 05:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by slowplay
Just how do you get "a complicit MEC?" That is the crux of the issue. FtB's argument presupposes that a majority of LEC reps can't think independently and don't understand the structure with which the pilots have entrusted them.
This is what our current EVP, running for the LEC 20 Capt Rep says on that topic:
“Leadership” or “Representation”?
The ALPA representational structure currently in place has the membership electing the LEC reps, who in turn, as MEC members elect the MEC Officers. This is the point where the cultural and philosophical differences emerge, with the conflict centered on the flow of the direction and initiative.In simplistic terms, the existing philosophy is that the elections are where the primary democratic / representational duties end; from here the belief appears to be that DALPA should operate similar to a corporate or military structure where the elected MEC Officers develop initiatives (“lead”) with a strong expectation that the direction will be followed and endorsed by the MEC members / LEC reps and that those reps will subsequently “lead” the membership to make the “correct” decision.
Failure to comply with this philosophy usually results in being labeled as “not a team player”, “shooting inside the circle”, or “clearly a supporter of ‘alternative representation’”. Certainly there are efforts to ask the membership and the reps for “input” and “direction”, but ultimately when that input is marginalized while obtaining the final result, it is usually done so with a justification something like “we have more information than you do”, or “we know what’s best and decided to ‘lead’”.
I believe that the structure should operate more like it was designed to operate, with the membership providing direction and input to the reps, the reps giving direction to the MEC Leadership (“representation”), and the Leadership developing initiatives and taking action as directed. When unable to meet the direction, the Leadership should return to the MEC for re-direction (and similarly the reps to the membership when necessary). This is, of course, is how the current system is advertised, and does work with small issues (providing specific direction is given), but not the way it works in actuality with larger, more significant issues.
I believe that it is a rep’s job to “lead” at the MEC level by taking the initiative in concert with the other reps / members of the MEC in an effort to “represent” the interests and direction of the membership. The obvious example about where the current system may not have best served the membership was with the recent contract TA. Despite all of the justifications that I’ve heard, it is still unconscionable to me that the MEC Leadership / Negotiating Committee agreed to a Tentative Agreement (TA) with management, which neither met the MEC’s nor the membership’s parameters, the day before a regularly scheduled MEC meeting where the MEC could have been updated and had the opportunity to re-direct the Negotiating Committee / MEC Leadership prior to them actually reaching the TA.
Failure to comply with this philosophy usually results in being labeled as “not a team player”, “shooting inside the circle”, or “clearly a supporter of ‘alternative representation’”. Certainly there are efforts to ask the membership and the reps for “input” and “direction”, but ultimately when that input is marginalized while obtaining the final result, it is usually done so with a justification something like “we have more information than you do”, or “we know what’s best and decided to ‘lead’”.
I believe that the structure should operate more like it was designed to operate, with the membership providing direction and input to the reps, the reps giving direction to the MEC Leadership (“representation”), and the Leadership developing initiatives and taking action as directed. When unable to meet the direction, the Leadership should return to the MEC for re-direction (and similarly the reps to the membership when necessary). This is, of course, is how the current system is advertised, and does work with small issues (providing specific direction is given), but not the way it works in actuality with larger, more significant issues.
I believe that it is a rep’s job to “lead” at the MEC level by taking the initiative in concert with the other reps / members of the MEC in an effort to “represent” the interests and direction of the membership. The obvious example about where the current system may not have best served the membership was with the recent contract TA. Despite all of the justifications that I’ve heard, it is still unconscionable to me that the MEC Leadership / Negotiating Committee agreed to a Tentative Agreement (TA) with management, which neither met the MEC’s nor the membership’s parameters, the day before a regularly scheduled MEC meeting where the MEC could have been updated and had the opportunity to re-direct the Negotiating Committee / MEC Leadership prior to them actually reaching the TA.
09-14-2012, 05:58 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by slowplay
Now I'm the one with the short time to reply.
So we're going to quibble on the definition of "is", Mr. Clinton? Fine. You don't understand the governance structure on which ALPA works. The MEC (collected local council reps) are the governing body. We have 19 of those reps at Delta. There are various policy methodologies (some senatorial, some roll call based) by which they exercise that power. They elect the MEC Chair - he works to execute their collective will. You elect the Reps, they elect their Chair. To recall the Chair, you must get a 2/3 majority of reps or a majority of reps and a roll call majority.
So we're going to quibble on the definition of "is", Mr. Clinton? Fine. You don't understand the governance structure on which ALPA works. The MEC (collected local council reps) are the governing body. We have 19 of those reps at Delta. There are various policy methodologies (some senatorial, some roll call based) by which they exercise that power. They elect the MEC Chair - he works to execute their collective will. You elect the Reps, they elect their Chair. To recall the Chair, you must get a 2/3 majority of reps or a majority of reps and a roll call majority.
Originally Posted by slowplay
So you use an example of a Rep whose point of view was in the minority. The TA ratified 14-5 on the MEC. 94% of the pilots voted and ratified the TA by 62%-38%. Every single base voted in favor of the agreement.
Originally Posted by slowplay
What I'm reading is that you have a problem with majority rule.
Go back to the APA situation you mentioned as a reason not to have direct MEC Chairman elections. Say a candidate panders in the worst way possible to the members and wins, is that wrong? No, it's not wrong, it just sucks. But I would have to accept the results even though I don't agree with it. Same with the TA, we passed it, I don't agree with it, but it is the contract we operate under and there is no undoing that. So I am in favor of majority rules.
The problem is, what if the majority is ethically wrong on a subject? That's where I believe in mechanisms that protect the rights of the minority to force compromises and be heard. Hence the balance.
Originally Posted by slowplay
But if you're serious, you'd find pilots in local bases who would recall reps that you believe "are the problem." You only need 10 reps and a majority of the roll call votes to make that happen. I have provided examples of it being done at least twice on our property.
You also have the option of starting a change to the policy manual and ALPA C&BL. If you're serious about change, start the process. We'll get a lot more debate (good) and you'll see if your opinion is in the majority.
btw, do you still support DPA?
You also have the option of starting a change to the policy manual and ALPA C&BL. If you're serious about change, start the process. We'll get a lot more debate (good) and you'll see if your opinion is in the majority.
btw, do you still support DPA?
That to me is the dangers of a one vote for your local rep system. If you want to make a change, it's a slow process. I prefer the opportunity to make decisive changes at the top if so inclined, or keeping status quo, if so inclined.
But think about this, would you only want one vote for your House Rep or do you like having the ability to vote for the President and Senator?
fwiw, I'm indifferent to the DPA. I joined when the RAH debacle happened. It'd take another hard look to send another card in.
and fwiw part deux, if I came across as a ahole in earlier posts, I apologize. Didn't mean to. Thanks for continuing the discussion.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 09-14-2012 at 06:17 PM.
09-14-2012, 06:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by slowplay
Just how do you get "a complicit MEC?" That is the crux of the issue. FtB's argument presupposes that a majority of LEC reps can't think independently and don't understand the structure with which the pilots have entrusted them.
Frankly, I find it weird you don't hatap your imagination to find a scenario that fits my statement, so I'll make it easier than "complicit". If the MEC is willing to accept influence by the Chairman, the Chairman can have influence.
Add in NDA's, where the membership actually doesn't have the pertinent facts, and often isn't given a vote, and it's entirely possible for a given policy to be set without specific guidance from the pilots. At that point, exactly who has the power depends on the politics and the interraction between the MEC and the Chairman. I was told by the duty officer, upon calling to discuss the reason for JM's firing, that the MEC had determined he was no longer responsive to the MEC, and was given a long list of things he was alleged to have done, most of which took months. Proves your point the MEC actually can fire the Chairman, and it proves my point that much can happen before the MEC ultimately exerts their authority to fire.
I'm not in the circle, but this all seems obvious.
09-14-2012, 07:59 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by DAL73n
This is where simple math shows how ineffective this will be. The US Economy is 14 Trillion, the US Government Budget is 4 Trillion and the Fed is going to "stimulate" (read inflate and dilute the dollar) by $40 Billion a month - not much and the reason it hasn't worked in the past and won't work this time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
