Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-09-2013 | 02:26 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Someone forgot to switch gearjerk to decaf today I see...
10-09-2013 | 02:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
10-09-2013 | 02:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
From: "Prof" button manipulator
Someone forgot to switch gearjerk to decaf today I see...
10-09-2013 | 02:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
From: A330 First Officer
Wow PD. You have it all figured out. That's exactly what happened. "The negotiators were shown confidential pie charts, & swindled over the company's use of some $5 buzz words." (No offense Buzzpat.) The very reason why we only received an 4/8.5/3/3 raise.
Dude, why did we need any negotiators at all last time. You could've done it single-handedly!!
:
The very reason why we only received an 4/8.5/3/3 raise. Dude, why did we need any negotiators at all last time. You could've done it single-handedly!!
:
Gearjerk,
While I don't agree, with purple, that we could have gotten 25% each year pay raises, I do believe we should have gotten much more.
Giving back a part of our profit sharing, that we already paid once for in letter 51, was a real special kind of stupid. The only reason the company wanted that back was so they could go to the other employee groups and take it from them. That is their problem not ours. To say that we would have gotten even less of percentage raises than 3% the last two years without giving it back is rich to say the least.
This has been the same cycle for the almost 14 years I've been here. It's time to negotiate, well it's time to manufacture some immediate reason the company needs something or else we lose.
My bet for the 2015 negotiations is widebody orders. They will need relief from FAR 117, JV, code share or large RJ's and the carrot will be a widebody order that will make every pilot on the seniority list salivate.
Just my take/opinion
10-09-2013 | 02:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,105
Likes: 100
10-09-2013 | 02:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
From: "Prof" button manipulator
Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the fool who follows him?
Nu
Nu
So, Purple Drank & I are both fools,
but he's still buying the first beer if we ever cross paths. GJ
10-09-2013 | 03:33 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
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.
Carl
10-09-2013 | 04:06 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
These are the kind of statements that certainly make me question whether you have any resolve at all...other than doing what you're told to do. The phrase "growing a pair" comes to mind, but I'm reminded of a female friend who says we've got to start replacing that phrase with "growing a vagina". After all, "those things take a pounding."
Carl
10-09-2013 | 04:21 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Don't get me wrong, I would love it and I think the company could afford it now but they will refuse, we will become deadlocked and the NMB will park us a la AA.
How do we get around this dilemma? That is the question for anyone out in APC land. I'm all for huge raises but how do we get past the NMB?
Denny
How do we get around this dilemma? That is the question for anyone out in APC land. I'm all for huge raises but how do we get past the NMB?
Denny
In case you're wondering what part of the RLA coverage I wish we had, it's the part that prevents labor contracts from being unilaterally gutted in a bankruptcy. While dealing with the NMB process of not allowing a strike right away is definitely a problem, it's at least a benefit knowing your contract can't be gutted in a bankruptcy. The problem for us is that this bankruptcy protection is only for the railroads. Airlines are carved out of that protection for labor.
Thus we have the worst of all worlds. Near prevention from striking, but our contracts immediately killable in bankruptcy. You would think that would be number one on ALPA's most wanted list. Instead, ALPA is silent on it.
Carl
10-09-2013 | 05:17 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Sink,
All of your observations are valid.
It is the individual MEC members that give direction to the negotiating committee during the "direction phase".
The key to the process is to have individual reps that are willing to step up, speak up and give direction in such a way that you get the other guys in the room to go along.
Some guys are happy with the ideas the NC suggests. Others are more "interactive", and press for goals that are important to their constituents, but may not be to other Councils. Some guys are good at building consensus, others try to force things through by force of will (or numbers).
You, as a member of an LEC, get to decide what kind of rep you send to speak for you. LEC elections get a remarkably low turn out, but it is the people that you send that ultimately make these decisions. I can't emphasize that enough.
You need to ask the right questions of anyone running for office, and make sure you're satisfied with the answers they give.
Nu
All of your observations are valid.
It is the individual MEC members that give direction to the negotiating committee during the "direction phase".
The key to the process is to have individual reps that are willing to step up, speak up and give direction in such a way that you get the other guys in the room to go along.
Some guys are happy with the ideas the NC suggests. Others are more "interactive", and press for goals that are important to their constituents, but may not be to other Councils. Some guys are good at building consensus, others try to force things through by force of will (or numbers).
You, as a member of an LEC, get to decide what kind of rep you send to speak for you. LEC elections get a remarkably low turn out, but it is the people that you send that ultimately make these decisions. I can't emphasize that enough.
You need to ask the right questions of anyone running for office, and make sure you're satisfied with the answers they give.
Nu
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
