How did DALPA get played? We received raises, improved sick policy, improved work rules, and better vacation and training pay. We also reduced the allowable amount of AS Codeshare & total RJs. The mainline fleet is scheduled to grow by 70+ airplanes over the next several years. And I left the 320 for the 7ER and have stayed put for multiple AEs.

 

Why would you do that? I've already refuted them. Are you the kind of guy that just keeps saying the same thing louder to people who don't agree with you?

Yes it is. Our management team specifically said just that.

Management disagrees with you. And since they keep the books, I believe them.

This straw man point has nothing to do with management's characterization of our contract as being cost neutral to Delta. This is what I mean when I tell you that you waste people's time with a swarm of words hoping to convince people that you're some sort of subject matter expert.

Shakespeare said: "Brevity is the soul of wit". You should work on it.

Carl

 

I see. I post management's quotes, while you state your opinions...and I'm the one playing word games. Love it.

My goodness, you just don't listen. I've never said that. Management has never said that. I've only said what management has said, which is: our contract is cost neutral to Delta Air Lines. That means all of our gains (paid for by the airline), were offset (funded) by backward steps in other areas.

Of course, but that's not what management was/or is talking about. Our contract covered its own cost increases. Not any of the other things you mentioned, just the contract itself.

Carl

 

From Delta's recent 8K:

"Consolidated unit cost (CASM 3 ), excluding fuel expense, profit sharing and special items, was 5.7 percent higher in the December 2012 quarter on a year-over-year basis, driven by the impact of capacity reductions, wage increases, and operational and service investments. GAAP consolidated CASM increased 9 percent."

The most recent contract may have been neutral to Delta. Cutting maintenance costs and salary at regional carriers, and stacking that value up on top of the mainline contract could be considered neutral from a CEO perspective. In other words, subtracting a $billion from them, and adding a $billion for us is neutral. I'll take that any day.

 

In the meantime, each bid I'm within a hair of being displaced off the 320.

I know the planes are coming, but with the first bid for the 717's coming up, we're looking at over 400 displacements.

 

Our union's job is to follow its own processes. Our MEC administration didn't do that.

No, that's what you're trying to do. Our contract is cost neutral from management's perspective. That's why management specifically said that in numerous publications.

It's beyond you alfa because (and I'm sorry to be so blunt), you're a poor listener. You're like a transceiver stuck in transmit mode. Our reps weren't playing a game. Those 5 reps were questioning why our negotiating committee would sign off on a TA (without ever consulting the reps) that didn't cost the airline one additional penny (as stated publicly by management) before Section 6 negotiations even began. Those were excellent questions, not games being played.

Carl

 

Well, if the cost if getting your respect is to agree that this contract is cost neutral or better to the company, then the price of admission is too steep. And the membership is liable to consist of liars and the mathematically challenged.

There is no way the company spends less per pilot under this deal, or that individuals are worse off as a result if the TA. There were some concessions made to staffing, some gains made in workrules, and obvious gains in compensation.

The only valid question is whether we got enough in this early TA.

The cheerleaders say we got everything, the DPA guys say we got nothing. Neither is true.

I voted for it based partly on the TVM argument, and mostly because of the up-gauging. I gladly banked the 12+% so far, and have been looking forward to advancement that hasn't materialized yet, and the results whispers about large follow-on pieces that would give us one or two great new opportunities.

I'm beginning to wonder if we were played in terms of a(one or more) follow-on transaction(s), but it's hard to say just yet. That's the problem with working under NDA's (a practice I'm increasingly skeptical of). I'll judge advancement by the next two AE's as we get closer to 717 deliveries (so far, I'm disappointed), and I'll judge our ability to negotiate additional improvements on getting a very respectful amount of LHR flying from VA. Based on what I expect to happen on the existing JV %, I'm skeptical about our ability to negotiate enforceable deals, as well as our willingness to enforce negotiated deals.

Can you respect that opinion, or do I have to buy into this theory of neutral-minus first?

 

True. But to be fair, you choose to not commute. And since you're senior to me I'm greatful for that.

 

Johnso, don't you have any heartburn with what was the world's largest carrier, the number one Asian carrier (at least we were) only having 65 NB FOs at LAX and none at its other gateway in SEA? Language like LAX exception and SEA shall never be a hub regardless of the number days of daily departures doesn't make that defective sense stand out strong?

I'm sorry, but replacing 50-seat, obsolete, cost ineffective RJs for ones in which two can be operated for the price of one -88 and at longer ranges is not a win for anyone under Carl's position. All we did was create another group of pilots who get paid like bottom feeders to operate aircraft that honestly should be my upgrade seat, and now we fight over the last floater in the pot.

You are welcome to digest these facts:
DAL management wanted a fast contract, undisclosed as to why (I have my own theory)
We sign a contract that sustains the DCI model for 15-20 more years and shortly after:
UAL signs a TA allowing their first ever RJs over 70-seats
CAL looses 50-seat scope
AA looses not just control over 70-seat scope, but 50% of their operation can be connection and now their maximum seats are 76, AS and JBLU can also fly an equivalent of 50% of their routes. The "trigger" for all of this was DALPA endorsing and passing a similar TA. It wasn't just industry leading it was industry changing on an epic level.

Lastly, the profit sharing was almost 6% of the net for the year? I guess I'll add my 3% raise in 2014 to that loss as well.

And I'm sick of the "oh, don't worry we will buy them someday," mentality. When after their junior most guy is an 8 year 737 CA or 330 CA?

 

Talk about word games. Pay RATES may have gone up, but far too many of us are seeing those RATE gains neutralized by displacements. Displacements allowable by contract changes that allow us to do more flying with less pilots. I know you know this, so I wonder who you are trying to fool with this line of "reason".

See above.

They articulated their thoughts beautifully. But folks like you and the rest of the MEC administration refused to listen, then denigrated them as being a divisive force. You put in front of them a fait accompli. A done deal. They were faced with accepting this bad deal, or sending back an angry and embarrassed negotiating committee to negotiate with management. That's what YOU and the MEC administrators did to our reps. All of our reps. Some reps didn't seem to mind very much. Others did.

Straw man argument that only you are having with yourself.

Carl