I posted that however your version is far from what I said. The company put it out as part of the package. I stated they did not push that hard for it. There was some support for it with pilots who have flown them. You can read this forum and find support. I personally don't like them and will be a no voter if they are not full credit trips.
What you and I don't know is how their inclusion will effect overall trip construction. I do know that many many simulations were run trying many different options. I will wait to here what the MEC reports on the simulations. The forum of course will call those reports selling the TA.

Agreed. This is about as good as it's going to get in terms of environment. And I don't care about the political environment in terms of RLA. There are plenty of ways to pressure the company prior to engaging the nmb. Especially if we don't pass this TA. Current contract preserves a lot of unused leverage. The company loves the peace with labor.

If this passes, it will significantly lower the possibilities for C2015 very close to even beginning negotiations.

Ha, thanks:D I am thinking that since I'm not an attorney, I'm going to refrain from posting my interpretation of the FAR's on here. It will be interesting to see where this all falls out.

I'm not an insider and I don't know the nuts and bolts of what transpired. As to leverage, maybe we had none. I don't know. Did the company have leverage that forced us into these CDOs? Again, I don't don't know. Either way, not crazy about what little I've seen so far. I guess I'll sit back and wait for the whole thing to be released then try to digest what's in there. My guess is I'm going to have to work under this deal whether I like it or not. Just hoping the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. So far, I don't see it--maybe it's there.

RANT WARNING

I agree with you guys 100% and I don't think that view has been given enough debate time.

DALPA views this TA as necessary to solve a minor issue involving long call reserves and FAR 117 implementation. They see a very narrow "bargaining environment" and they confined the talks to those scheduling issues. They did the best they could and they obviously thought it required some give and take, etc. etc. and we made some gains in some areas and made some concessions in others. All negotiations require give and take, yada, yada

The MEC chose to ignore or postpone any consideration of the larger, more comprehensive "bargaining environment". The one where the corporation is making massive profits largely as a result of the pilot concessions over the last decade and that fairness demands that some of those concessions be restored to us.

The MEC seems to be unwilling to expand this 117 situation into an opportunity to make some gains on a broader scale. They did not want to
engage the company in any way that might be disruptive to the operation. A real fight over Dickson's memo and the long call rules would have cost the company money and possibly disrupted the summer flight schedule. The MEC did not want to go there.

I think we should have picked a fight. (or more accurately, we should have responded when Dickson picked the fight)
I think it would have been legal and it would have paid off.

By confining our view of the "bargaining environment" to just a long call reserve problem and ignoring the big picture we ended up just tweaking the scheduling section and doing the old ALPA "what are you willing to give up for that" dance. We end up with 5+15 ADG and CDOs.
Very disappointing.

Maybe somebody will bring this up at the MEC meeting. Maybe they will turn this thing down and decide to attempt some larger gains.
I'm not optimistic however. ALPA as an institution has become so "risk averse" and passive that it seems to have almost been completely neutered. I think it would be worth a shot to get just a bit aggressive when the money is flowing like it is now. Management and the shareholders are slurping at the trough. We should at least be making a loud noise and emphasizing the point that a lot of that money is OURS.

I guess we'll get 'em in 2015. (or '16 or '18 maybe. Depending on the mood at the NMB)
The same NMB that also seems to strike fear in the hearts of anyone in Herndon.

And I don't know the nuts and bolts either, was only pointing out that they are called "negotiations" for a reason. I bet we could have come up with just the 13 hour long call thingy and ended there. But say, we are tagging on 60 million in additional costs, I just don't see that being handed over without some leverage, no matter how much money the company makes. Compared to how much I pay the yard guy (I actually cut my own lawn, just an example) he thinks I am making buckets of money and can afford to pay a lot more. I don't just give him 20 percent more unless there is a pretty good reason to do so....

Again, I have no idea what the details were of this deal, maybe we blew an opportunity.. Who knows?

DELTA MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
March 22 – 27, 2010
Orlando, Florida



AGENDA ITEM #​AI 10-52​​​COMMITTEE # ​ 2 ​​

MAKER: ENDLER ​​​SECOND: ​GERST​

MOTION # ​​VOTE: ​


WHEREAS the single duty period overnight rotations, more commonly known as “illegals,” were very popular with the most senior pilots who live in base, and

WHEREAS these “illegal” rotations are very cost effective and eliminated the need for 30+ hour domestic layovers in many locations with minimal service, and

WHEREAS “Illegal” rotations are flown by all the other major mainline carriers,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Delta MEC directs the Negotiating Committee and Scheduling Committee to use any resources necessary to provide for the construction and reinstatement of single duty period short overnight rotations for domestic pilots, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the Scheduling Committee to work with the Company to build and return “illegals” back to the monthly bid packages.

We took concessions in the last contract in a upswing airline industry, why not do it again? The pilots voted it through.

Your point that there is often give and take in negotiations is true, and C2K is an example of that.

But your claim C2K was a increase in productivity (meaning requiring less pilots for the amount of flying), is not true. I know someone will chime in and talk about what somebody in crew resources told them, but go into the ALPA office and look at the roadshow slides. Every change was costed. When a work rule change required more pilots (for example: additional X days, reduced cap, reroute pay, etc) that cost was added. Conversely, when a change required less pilots (eliminating partial month move-ups for reserves), that cost was subtracted.

So let me get this straight. With augmented ops we go from a nice JFK/SFO (SEA, LAX, PDX ...) transcon with a decent layover, work-out, beer, dinner ... to a 3-man turn? A turn??!! Commuters will certainly love that -- more time in the crashpad. Guys who drive 3 hours to JFK will love that, more opportunity to wind upside down in a ditch. The zombie apocalypse will be here sooner than you think.:eek:

Might be a good thing for the 2 pilots who live near JFK, though.

CDO's: An absolute no vote.
Augmented domestic ops: An absolute no vote.

This is a giant step backwards in QOL. What's the point of more time off if you're dead?

Unfortunately I think this is someone's baby and I doubt this will go to MEMRAT.