Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-09-2013 | 07:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
I don't know about this truck thing. Mine is a massive heart attack on the upstroke, 2 strokes after I'm dead. Think about it
10-09-2013 | 07:31 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I'm surprised you actually put a number out there that you'd vote yes for. My guess is that there is no scenario or number that you would ever vote "yes" for. It's because your vote is influenced by emotion rather than using logic and being rational.
You and a lot of other angry guys here are like scorned wives going through a divorce. There is no amount of money that would make them happy. They just want their husband to suffer as they have.
That's why so many guys were angry about the current contract. Yes, we got some gains back, but Delta didn't suffer like you wanted them to. They are still making money and didn't hurt like you did over the last 14 years. The problem using your logic is that if Delta hurts financially like you want them to, then we all end up hurting again, i.e., paycuts, shrinkage, furloughs, etc...
It's just business. Our emotions shouldn't be a factor. My advice to you Purple is to get some therapy.
You and a lot of other angry guys here are like scorned wives going through a divorce. There is no amount of money that would make them happy. They just want their husband to suffer as they have.
That's why so many guys were angry about the current contract. Yes, we got some gains back, but Delta didn't suffer like you wanted them to. They are still making money and didn't hurt like you did over the last 14 years. The problem using your logic is that if Delta hurts financially like you want them to, then we all end up hurting again, i.e., paycuts, shrinkage, furloughs, etc...
It's just business. Our emotions shouldn't be a factor. My advice to you Purple is to get some therapy.
IMO, you couldn't be more off base.
This is business. It has nothing to do with emotion.
Is Dal poised to profit 2.5 billion this year? Yes.
Did we leave money on the table?
10-09-2013 | 07:38 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
10-09-2013 | 07:39 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
10-09-2013 | 07:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
Unless you were in Richards head this is only conjecture. OBTW, the record profits are happening with the 50 seaters still around and the 717 having yet to fly a revenue passenger. In other words, if mgmt had walked away from the table the big "D" would still be posting record profits under our old contract and it would probably be even bigger profits.
10-09-2013 | 07:40 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Alright, enough about moving up seniority numbers. I've searched the beer section for torpedoes. Do they go by another name?
10-09-2013 | 07:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
From: erb
10-09-2013 | 07:41 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Unless you were in Richards head this is only conjecture. OBTW, the record profits are happening with the 50 seaters still around and the 717 having yet to fly a revenue passenger. In other words, if mgmt had walked away from the table the big "D" would still be posting record profits under our old contract and it would probably be even bigger profits.
10-09-2013 | 07:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
10-09-2013 | 07:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Agreed.
...
You know, I'm going to throw a rock into our collective puddles here, but I want to know: why the hell does it matter what individuals want?
We always start out by making a list of demands (step in one on the path to disappointment), invariably put payrates up top, retirement second Scope, well, Scope egts sort of a glancing pass. Section 23 goes MIA.
Then we charge up the hill, get a little of the headline payrate number we asked for, and wonder what the happened.
...
What if we did this:
1) Establish an appropriate amount of flying that needs to be performed by the Delta pilots. FIGHT FOR THAT.
2) Establish an appropriate amount of total gains for the Delta pilots *. FIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL NUMBER / %.
3) Determine the appropriate fixes needed in our contract to make it acceptable to work under. This includes scheduling sections.
4) Determine the sort of medical plan a pilot actually requires to remain healthy for the long-term, and to stop subsidizing our own employment.
5) Determine other areas where we are subsidizing our employment, such as insufficient per-diem, uniforms, etc.
6) Determine what's left over. Apply that to payrate increases.
There really are only two things that truly matter: how much of the flying belongs to us, and how much of the revenue belongs to us. After we obtain this, we should fix our contract. After we do that, we should stop the bleeding of money via health insurance and other nickel-and-dime issues. At that point, our net would be higher already.
Only then should we arrive at payrate increases. These should be completely decoupled from an initial wish-list, or other airlines. The end result might be more than PD requires, or less. My point is that we should only fight for two things, and solve the details later. By invariably focusing on payrate headline numbers, we constantly fail to monitor concessionary trades, and we especially fail to worry about the total value of the deal. IOW, I think we might tend to be so short-sighted, that we leave money on the table.
I wonder if we should have a two-part contract negotiation, where we go to bat for a total number, and a proper amount of flying, then we poll the membership on how to apply these gains. Regardless of whether the nature of the gains should be baked into a TA, or not, I'm pretty convinced we're making a mistake by putting payrates at the top of the list. The total value of a contract is not determined by payrates alone. It's:
Advancement (meaning Scope gains + other contractual gains) + (credit * payrates) + any preferential tax treatment such as increasing DC contributions - Costs of employment
I'm tired of placing priorities negotiating backwards, and asking the wrong questions. It's not about how much you want for the boat, or the house, but about getting as much as we can, and leaving nothing on the table.
...
You know, I'm going to throw a rock into our collective puddles here, but I want to know: why the hell does it matter what individuals want?
We always start out by making a list of demands (step in one on the path to disappointment), invariably put payrates up top, retirement second Scope, well, Scope egts sort of a glancing pass. Section 23 goes MIA.
Then we charge up the hill, get a little of the headline payrate number we asked for, and wonder what the happened.
...
What if we did this:
1) Establish an appropriate amount of flying that needs to be performed by the Delta pilots. FIGHT FOR THAT.
2) Establish an appropriate amount of total gains for the Delta pilots *. FIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL NUMBER / %.
3) Determine the appropriate fixes needed in our contract to make it acceptable to work under. This includes scheduling sections.
4) Determine the sort of medical plan a pilot actually requires to remain healthy for the long-term, and to stop subsidizing our own employment.
5) Determine other areas where we are subsidizing our employment, such as insufficient per-diem, uniforms, etc.
6) Determine what's left over. Apply that to payrate increases.
There really are only two things that truly matter: how much of the flying belongs to us, and how much of the revenue belongs to us. After we obtain this, we should fix our contract. After we do that, we should stop the bleeding of money via health insurance and other nickel-and-dime issues. At that point, our net would be higher already.
Only then should we arrive at payrate increases. These should be completely decoupled from an initial wish-list, or other airlines. The end result might be more than PD requires, or less. My point is that we should only fight for two things, and solve the details later. By invariably focusing on payrate headline numbers, we constantly fail to monitor concessionary trades, and we especially fail to worry about the total value of the deal. IOW, I think we might tend to be so short-sighted, that we leave money on the table.
I wonder if we should have a two-part contract negotiation, where we go to bat for a total number, and a proper amount of flying, then we poll the membership on how to apply these gains. Regardless of whether the nature of the gains should be baked into a TA, or not, I'm pretty convinced we're making a mistake by putting payrates at the top of the list. The total value of a contract is not determined by payrates alone. It's:
Advancement (meaning Scope gains + other contractual gains) + (credit * payrates) + any preferential tax treatment such as increasing DC contributions - Costs of employment
I'm tired of placing priorities negotiating backwards, and asking the wrong questions. It's not about how much you want for the boat, or the house, but about getting as much as we can, and leaving nothing on the table.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
