|
Originally Posted by Tomcat
(Post 675494)
Well Alfa, you started out really well and I appreciate your response. Actually the first I've gotten from someone since this went down. I did receive a call from Ed Thiel the Captain Rep in SLC as soon as he found out we gave away the 76 seat flying. although I didn't agree with it, I respect Ed since he called me and faced it head on.
Here's where you took a sharp left turn..... Is trust an emotional thing? I don't know, perhaps that something all of us have to answer, but it is something we need as a union to get business done. So if you want to call me emotional, because someone violated my trust with no explanation, then that's your prerogative, however, I'm not the only one out here. So as friendly and professionally as I can possibly say to you my friend, perhaps that's something for you to ponder. Respectfully, TC This is directly from the Negotiator's Notepad from May 2006: Senior executives flatly refused our repeated proposals to operate 76-seat aircraft at the mainline with a competitive cost structure. Their position was that there was no cost structure we could provide that would account for other costs and permit a competitive operation. The choice came down to whether there would be a T/A with the financial returns to the pilot group and this scope change (to allow some 76-seat RJs), or no deal at all, with the associated risks and uncertainties that path would offer. At the same time, the Negotiating Committee views scope as the major contractual foundation of our job security. We told management, therefore, that there would be no greater number of 76- seat RJs than necessary, that the number could only grow with mainline growth from the fleet level achieved after the lease restructurings, and that these 76-seaters would have to physically revert to 70-seat status if a single pilot is placed on furlough, including furloughed pilots Troy Kane and above once they are recalled. After crafting the furlough provision and the mainline growth metric to protect our junior pilots, the Negotiating Committee determined that, as a package, LOA 51 was the best agreement that could be achieved. My point is that no one violated your trust. They just couldn't achieve the goals they set for themselves and tried their best to achieve. Those are two different things. I think you should be able to differentiate those two. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 675812)
For some reason I thought you came from PCL and hired on here in 2007. Am I mistaken?
The first part of your post isn't exactly true. From 2001-2004 Delta pilots received substantial payraises. 11/11/04 saw LOA 46 and the first real concessions (save PRP's). LOA 50 occured in bankruptcy and was the final pay reduction (12/14/05). Since then there has been slow but steady progress made on restoration. Also, anyone that took those large concessions divvied up $2 billion in Claim and Notes, and the pilot group got 49 million shares of Delta for the merger, plus about 18% in compensation restoration over the 4 years of the deal. And as far as the ATM comment, the folks really taken to the cleaners were the shareowners and unsecured debt holders. True, we are getting some money back, I give you that, but when you look at the 18%, it still does not put a dent in our total loss of buying power. It truly is pathetic. IMO that is where the anger is coming from. As for the claim note, most of the guys that kept it, had to write very large check to Uncle Sam because of it. Yes, they may be able to get some of that back, but that process, and then the financial melt down after this money was invested really leaves many guys 45 years or older with very limited options. They do not want to hear how well we did. At least the ones I fly with don't. I agree that there will be substantial improvements in our contract over time. I'd prefer not to wait until 2012, but take every opportunity to add value prior to that point. |
[QUOTE=Box Office;675764]
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 675662)
Exactly, but as stated in the election info, about 25% of e-mails are returned. Many people do not keep their e-mail up-to-date with the union. That is why we see week old information in our V-files.quote]
If the union quit duplicating effort and went to email only, I bet people would keep their email address updated. If they can get in an a v-file there is no incentive to update. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 675047)
Boyd says real data is tracking just below his baseline forecast for future flying. He writes not to expect a turn around until late in the 3rd qtr 2010. Like me, he thinks we need to watch jobs reports and unemployment as indicators of where passenger travel is headed.
He also thinks the "quality" of travel is very important. Delta's network gives us an edge against operators which primarily serve the leisure markets and smaller point to point networks. Again, if the stars do align and we make it through this without furloughs ... I'll be pleasantly amazed. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 675847)
This is directly from the Negotiator's Notepad from May 2006:
We told management, therefore, that there would be no greater number of 76- seat RJs than necessary, that the number could only grow with mainline growth from the fleet level achieved after the lease restructurings, Why even write in the option to have that airplane grow in numbers? As long as the RJ's grow when we grow we will NEVER get out of this hole. It's that exact language that we need to stop giving away. And we shouldn't give anything on the next contract, even if we do get scope back. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 675812)
For some reason I thought you came from PCL and hired on here in 2007. Am I mistaken?
Correct. Your point is? Does that lower my expections in anyway or would you prefer to still be making in the left seat what you used to in the right seat? |
[quote=alfaromeo;675847]
This is directly from the Negotiator's Notepad from May 2006: Senior executives flatly refused our repeated proposals to operate 76-seat aircraft at the mainline with a competitive cost structure. Their position was that there was no cost structure we could provide that would account for other costs and permit a competitive operation. Alfa, That may have been the case back then but since then a lot has changed, specifically: *Mainline took over a lot of the connection functions in Atlanta, so what exactly are these "other costs" in their case? * Fuel costs have gone up greatly since then. * Mainline labor costs have gone down. I think its time to revisit what mainline can and cannot operate. All of this ignores the fact that while DAL is losing billions some of our DCI carriers are making money. If those airframes are flown at mainline, that "profit" would be captured by mainline. Overall I think DALPA does a good job, but the whole scope issue needs to be continually monitored, and perhaps a little more agressively defended. Scoop |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 675770)
ooh ooh ooh let me answer this one! :D
It's a rat trap, and not likely to change until the 797 is built and actually flies. |
[quote=Scoop;675865]
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 675847)
This is directly from the Negotiator's Notepad from May 2006: Senior executives flatly refused our repeated proposals to operate 76-seat aircraft at the mainline with a competitive cost structure. Their position was that there was no cost structure we could provide that would account for other costs and permit a competitive operation. Alfa, That may have been the case back then but since then a lot has changed, specifically: *Mainline took over a lot of the connection functions in Atlanta, so what exactly are these "other costs" in their case? * Fuel costs have gone up greatly since then. * Mainline labor costs have gone down. I think its time to revisit what mainline can and cannot operate. All of this ignores the fact that while DAL is losing billions some of our DCI carriers are making money. If those airframes are flown at mainline, that "profit" would be captured by mainline. Overall I think DALPA does a good job, but the whole scope issue needs to be continually monitored, and perhaps a little more agressively defended. Scoop I originally posted this, because it was claimed there has been no explanation of what happened in Scope negotiations in LOA 51. I agree with you and the negotiators that we can efficiently operate those aircraft. I think you should note that the negotiators did not buy management's line they just reported it to you. What they said was that in the end it came down to take it or leave it. Their calculation, which I also agreed with, was that taking it provided less risk and greater return than leaving it. The MEC agreed and the pilots agreed. It was tough power negotiations but in 1113, every labor group that pressed to test got their contract rejected and their right to strike enjoined. I think we need to change the laws of bankruptcy, it is not a fair fight. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 675847)
This is directly from the Negotiator's Notepad from May 2006:
Senior executives flatly refused our repeated proposals to operate 76-seat aircraft at the mainline with a competitive cost structure. Their position was that there was no cost structure we could provide that would account for other costs and permit a competitive operation. The choice came down to whether there would be a T/A with the financial returns to the pilot group and this scope change (to allow some 76-seat RJs), or no deal at all, with the associated risks and uncertainties that path would offer. At the same time, the Negotiating Committee views scope as the major contractual foundation of our job security. We told management, therefore, that there would be no greater number of 76- seat RJs than necessary, that the number could only grow with mainline growth from the fleet level achieved after the lease restructurings, and that these 76-seaters would have to physically revert to 70-seat status if a single pilot is placed on furlough, including furloughed pilots Troy Kane and above once they are recalled. After crafting the furlough provision and the mainline growth metric to protect our junior pilots, the Negotiating Committee determined that, as a package, LOA 51 was the best agreement that could be achieved. My point is that no one violated your trust. They just couldn't achieve the goals they set for themselves and tried their best to achieve. Those are two different things. I think you should be able to differentiate those two. Now as for trust. When I spoke with my Reps the last day of the voting window on the Joint Contract about Section One, I was assured that the only flying that Alaska would do for the combined company on the West Coast was from SEA, PDX and LAX. Because I trusted my Reps I voted Yes, That 's right everyone, I vote Yes on the contract, because I believed it was extremely important to bring the NWA pilot up to parity with regards to pay from day one. Now it looks like Alaska is going to do our Mexico flying. But I trusted my Reps, because I didn't have access to all the information that was referenced in Section One. The proof will be in the Puddin"! Lastly Alfa, although I don't see eye to eye with you and Slowplay on many of these issues...... You're looking at it from the perspective of a player within the organization and I'm looking at it as a day to day blue color line dog, I very much appreciate your participation and your candor in this forum. Respectfully, TC |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands