Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

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.

Originally Posted by Check Essential

Gentlemen-
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.

I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs) were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.

Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.

I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.

Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--

· Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.

did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw 3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.

It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".

Originally Posted by Razor

I sure wish you all would stop quoting Carl. I have him on ignore but when you quote him I have to wade through his divisive drivel.

Originally Posted by tsquare

That's the way I feel about index and PD..... But per your request, not more Carl quotes....

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

I am on board ... good idea.

Originally Posted by gzsg

So now we are focusing on council 20 resolutions.

Originally Posted by gzsg

You have no shame.

Originally Posted by gzsg

When does DALPA wake up and realize we are working under decade old concessions, management is sucking millions for themselves and just committed $2.75 BILLION to the shareholder no later than 2016.

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy

I get a lot of emails from the company and my union and read through most of them. At no point did I ever hear anything about SDPs. When I asked my reps about how negotiations were proceeding I got answers that were vague because they said they were not permitted to speak to the details. Again, SDPs were never mentioned as a possibility. I was told there was a package of items that the union wanted and they did not want to break them up piecemeal. Now some who are closer to their reps and have personal relationships with them may have heard this, but the average line pilot had no idea SDPs were being discussed.

My point is how and why do our reps go down a road where they haven't sought our input on something like SDPs???? We ask and are told it's all currently confidential. Do I have to guess the direction my union is going on unknown objectives some pilots might have an interest in?

I will say I am happy with this TA and thank those who represent us and work on our behalf for what we finally got here. But what kind of surprises lay in store for C2015 if this is how it's going to go? Looking forward to the "You don't understand the process." or "You need to volunteer." No, my dues say my union should represent me, and if you represent me how about communicating clearly what you're acting on. Would it have hurt negotiations to have informed us in a couple of the emails we get that this was what was being discussed? If it would have had negative effects that might have not been a bad thing before such an idea as SDPs got as far as it did.

I don't agree with Carl on all his points, but I think he's right about the SDPs--the notion that a deal involving SDPs was made known to the average line pilot is a falsehood. And as far as how he responds to those who have opposing views I believe him to usually be as respectful as those he deals with. Something I wish I could say of those who hang out with hot looking Ducks.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

No I am not. But I have always been amused by the guys obsessed over job numbers. We have min staffing numbers in the contract anyway, and since premium pay flying is actually a factor that triggers the staffing requirements (i.e. the more GS, the more pilots required, which will eventually lessen the numbers of GS, so it all balances out in the very long run). But where does it end? Why don't we augment for > 7 hours of flying, or > 6? Why don't we go back to a hard cap, and make it 60 hours, and call anyone flying 61 a wannabe scab?

"This week's crisis is next week's footnote." I've been around for awhile, and most agreements eventually reach between us and the company usually end up fairly positive, with some exceptions (C96, BK LOA 46, which was necessary, and post-BK LOA 51 which was not). ALL TAs that I have ever seen have been accompanied by the almost guaranteed complaints and gnashing of teeth.

Meanwhile we have better pay and work rules than any other legacy carrier, and are trying to do even better. DALPA must have done something right in the past few years, though you would never know it reading some guys.

I'm at least "troubled" by the CDOs. I DO think this should go to memrat just due to the scope of the agreement. I just don't want to burn the place down until I have heard far more details.

Originally Posted by slowplay

Nope, but apparently you are. I focused on the facts.




Your mirror must be a tough reflection.



Yup, we're not paid enough. You're currently receiving $2.35 per hour less than you did on the same equipment in 2004. You've got a frozen pension.

That sucks.

On the upside, you're getting 15% DC. You got 8.2% profit sharing this year. The airline is finally growing again (looks like 850 new hires this year), and the speed of that upgauging came from a contract you deride and argued against. The MEC just approved another mid contract deal that put an additional $36 million per year in pilot pockets. And all those similarly situated airlines that negotiated after you are still behind you. Oh, and $750 million of the money that you mentioned is being used to pay pension debt early - why didn't you mention that?

Why was your self worth so low when you willingly agreed to undercut the contract you aspire to by 10-15% back in 2003?

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy

the average line pilot had no idea SDPs were being discussed.

My point is how and why do our reps go down a road where they haven't sought our input on something like SDPs???? We ask and are told it's all currently confidential.

Originally Posted by Vikz09

Perhaps, the MEC should ask management when they are going to make good on the concessions that were forced upon the pilot group. I can understand the anger of the guys I fly with see management buy shares of other airlines, provide billions in shareholder value while their union says nothing.

Originally Posted by Vikz09

Slowplay. Let me start by saying I have no dog in this fight as I was brought in after the merger. However, It does seem to me that you love to throw "you have a frozen pension" in the face of former NWA pilots. I fail to see your argument? They negotiated to keep that, No? Similarly, the pre-merger Delta MEC had bankruptcy negotiations with management and we're unsuccessful in keeping or negotiating the same with their management. What am I missing?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Well stated Sir.

You are correct, we as a MEC, thought the SDP would be a way to give pilots what they wanted, which was fewer 30 hour sits and more time at home.

Then C20 (where the idea came from on paper) got very defensive when the politics went South (what a pun) and tried to deflect. Their pilots want memrat to distance themselves politically from an idea which is already dead for this round and was a joint MEC position by this stage. Their calls for recall are completely over the top ... and of course we had a unanimous vote which seals the deal. It was all so emo.

Perhaps a better tact (and what a lot of reps have done) is to step up responsibly and state "yes, we directed the NC to the SDP." Because I think the idea which originated from C 20 isn't bad. We probably will see SDP in future negotiations. I think it is in our benefit to address and limit this back side of the clock flying because as is we have the worst case scenario of being able to do it as a day line that just duties in late with very few protections and we can't benefit from the scheduling (more time at home) and pay (more credit) that these might allow.

Briefly then, we need to continue this SDP discussion because I think they could be a benefit.