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.

Originally Posted by slowplay

I think you misunderstand.

A frozen pension isn't necessarily a good thing. If you had low FAE or years of service it's not worth much. I don't see how that's "throwing in the face."

btw, pensions either meet the standard for distress termination or they don't. That standard is contained in the bankruptcy code and ERISA. There is no "saving" them through negotiation.

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 Fly4hire

That's with the new BK laws post NWA/DAL if I'm not mistaken. Prior to that there was a lot more management discretion.

Originally Posted by gzsg

So now we are focusing on council 20 resolutions.

How about the one directing no concessions during C2012? Who makes concessions during record profits?

How about the one directing no scope concessions during C2012?

You have no shame.

The Delta line pilots were left in the dark like mushrooms. MD had months to lead us and inform us. He chose to tell us nothing of CDO. The MEC didn't even ask for hourly pay rate increases. Why not? Because management said this LOA was not worth that much.

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.

Why is your self worth so low?