So, resolution passed 4 years ago. Negotiations for the last 8 months. Why were our reps out of sync with the pilots they represent?

Lack of communication.


Yes they were out of step or we would have SDP's in our agreement.


Tr

BB. You are no better than Carl or purple when it comes to divisiveness. For every one thing you post that has merit, you typically post something that smears, questions or disparages 50% of your co-workers. It makes your opinions less relavent each time. You should either rise above the flamers or ****.

Yours is a question that nearly everyone is asking themselves right now. I pray I'm not breaking the confidence of a friend by reposting this, but this is just the sort of self-examination nearly everyone is doing.
Again, perhaps I erred by posting this. But posting might help some understand that your reps are very earnestly representing you the best they can figure out how to do the job. The sincerity of that effort really can't be appreciated when false allegations and calls for cross council recalls are being made.

Read your own posts! Why post a resolution from years ago? I'm a former south guy and all this nonsense about DTW is deflection from where the responsibility lies. Last time I checked DTW alone doesn't decide the direction of the NC, since that is where you are suggesting the push for CDOs came from. I know nothing of this KW issue you keep blowing up on this forum. You are the one being divisive right now bringing this to light and making it a NvS issue. That is all noise that is confusing responsibility.

My point is this is as much a failure of council 44, 20 etc as any other council. I have no agenda other than to shoot down all the political BS, run for cover, blame nonsense I see this morphing into rather than really finding out who decided these ridiculous CDOs were good for Delta Pilots as a whole. This single issue had the most potential to destroy a safe culture and QOL more so than any issue since I have been at Delta. I see fingerprints all over this thing including ATL reps who defended it to me personally over a month ago. This is vintage top down IMO. We deserve much better than what just happened.

Bar you are guilty of what you have accused so many of in the past. If you don't see that, I can't help you.

+777-300ER

QUOTE=DAWGS;1650729]Read your own posts! Why post a resolution from years ago? I'm a former south guy and all this nonsense about DTW is deflection from where the responsibility lies. Last time I checked DTW alone doesn't decide the direction of the NC, since that is where you are suggesting the push for CDOs came from. I know nothing of this KW issue you keep blowing up on this forum. You are the one being divisive right now bringing this to light and making it a NvS issue. That is all noise that is confusing responsibility.

My point is this is as much a failure of council 44, 20 etc as any other council. I have no agenda other than to shoot down all the political BS, run for cover, blame nonsense I see this morphing into rather than really finding out who decided these ridiculous CDOs were good for Delta Pilots as a whole. This single issue had the most potential to destroy a safe culture and QOL more so than any issue since I have been at Delta. I see fingerprints all over this thing including ATL reps who defended it to me personally over a month ago. This is vintage top down IMO. We deserve much better than what just happened.

Bar you are guilty of what you have accused so many of in the past. If you don't see that, I can't help you.[/QUOTE]

Regarding the MECs vote against memrat.

This TA had several quirks in the surrounding circumstances.

Here's just one:

a little memory rat brain teaser.

Let's say this TA went to memrat. Would you demand to know if the personal drop pilots were protected and made whole? Would you vote for the TA if they were not?

Ok. So let's say they were protected. In writing.
Let's say memrat happens extremely fast. It takes 30 days. (more realistically 45 or 60)

What could possibly go wrong?

Well I learned one thing; not to respond to divisive actions or else one runs the risk of getting painted with the same paint as the OP used.

Years ago I wrote some things that deeply offended Alpha, Slow and Sailing. My posts were factually accurate, but I used the most offensive terms to describe the negotiations ... some of those terms stuck ... "outsourcing, scope sale" ... others like "ALPA Apartheid" were equally true but too obscure to frame the debate.

When I posted source material (and I try to never post without a public third party source to back up the position) they backed down and got personal in a very good and effective way. They said, "hey, these guys are our friends and co-workers you wrote about. They were doing the best they could in a very difficult circumstance."

Their point stuck with me because in their moment of vulnerability they were honest and they were correct. They completely changed my view on the process.

Thus the DPA is a tricky issue. There is at least 50% support and maybe 80% support on some web boards. When I criticize what is a terrible idea for the Delta pilots, some, maybe the majority take it personally. By the same token, when folks like Carl lie about friends and call for their recall, it is taken personally. It is probably not intended that way, but that is how it is received.

The preference is to stick with objective facts to make a point. Sometimes your allegations catch me completely off guard. I had no idea that reposting a Council resolution would spin into a N/S thing. It was not even what anyone was thinking.

OK. Reps from all Councils, but one, have accepted responsibility for direction. *

Who's deflecting?

And why are you blaming me for that?

In fact, if you will re-read my posts ... I've been the one saying we need to give the idea proper consideration. The D-MEC is going to do scheduling surveys ... count on it.

* and that's a damn candid thing for reps to do.

Could get voted down? Just having the question out there effects scheduling and the ability to plan the operation for the summer? We undermine the legitimacy of the NC?

Did I get close?

I understand there was a legal argument against memrat, but I don't understand it. Can you help?

Two votes versus one, you're right.

I do like the ADG and think it will be a net line item win for us, although I'm sure we'll see a few unintended consequences in future bid packets as they company prioritizes not paying it through soft credit.

The 330 rest is also an improvement. Does this bring it back to what it had before? I can't blame our reps for that one, as the arbitrator was on the company's side on that and was just "legislating from the bench" when they just took it away in the first place. So I'm glad that's back.

I also like the fNWA longevity fix. While it won't apply to 90%+ fNWA pilots in terms of pay since almost all are max scale anyway it was still the right thing to do and will occasionally get someone into the next vacation/sick accrual bucket a couple months sooner.

I just don't get why when this entire negotiations, which was triggered by significant leverage WRT reserve notification, wasn't used to increase the long call leash and I really can't believe that for day one reports we said "we see your Steve Dickson memo, and raise you two hours earlier!" :eek:

While I'm not categorically against CDO's (SDP's, whatever) I wasn't crazy about the language in this particular proposal. 2 hours is just too long for these IMO for the worst case on the ground times. I would have preferred 1:30 or less. Also I thought it was this section that mandated the "fly to the FAR's" for duty periods, but the revised email still has this language in it. What exactly does that mean at this point? We didn't give up all the extra buffer time we had for regular pairings did we?

As for the costing of this, I can't figure out how our guys cost out something that they don't know and can't control, but the company knows and does control. CDO's as well as augmented domestic in all its forms is a function of how many, if any, the company decides to do, and they can change at any time. How do we put a fixed cost on that in the first place?

Especially the reported 2million cost differential between the original and revised TA's that was based primarilly on CDO's not being a part of the new one. So 2 million cost for something we had no idea how many they'd do or when they'd do them?

In any case the whole thing was a reserve crisis requiring a reserve solution and was a huge opportunity to significantly increase reserve QOL while simultaneously driving up manning requirements. But instead most of the gains went to other areas and we even lowballed the company's own unilateral short call memo to help fund other things. Long call only gained an hour, but with the interesting and potentially nefarious down the road precident shattering concept of automatic, instantaneous notification merely upon first attempted contact :eek: but then we gave that hour back anyway just to undo something else we originally included that had nothing directly to do with the reserve issues in question.