Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-27-2014 | 12:15 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Contract doesn't allow them anyway, so it's a moot point.
05-27-2014 | 12:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
The Delta MEC Policy Manual is available on the ALPA / DMEC web site and downloaded in your document library if you used the iPubs or Box. If you understand the system, things worked like they were supposed to. We do not routinely memrat agreements unless it is the result of Section 6 bargaining. Our MEC could, but most view the MEC as a representative democracy and reps expect to take responsibility for the job by casting their vote.
I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.
The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.
As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.
I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.
Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.
I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.
The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.
As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.
I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.
Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.
While factually right about the MEC policy manual and Memrat, you have left out a key detail.
Not sure if intentional or not as I know you are fairly new to Delta.
However, at one time not too long ago, the manual was changed. It had originally stated that any significant change to the contract, benefits, or work rules was to be Memrated.
That change was not made widely public to the members thus the confusion with the CDO abortion.
That is a change the baffles me as to why? Why change something that significant, particularly when trying to appear bottom up.
05-27-2014 | 12:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Hmmm, flamebait. Ironic.
Which is why I didn't call because my guys would have felt obligated to call back. I wanted them to enjoy a few days peace.
Anyway, had a good conversation with my rep today. Here's a quick synopsis:
1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.
2. No mention of a pay no credit lookback between now and November.
3. MEC nearly equally split on need for MEMRAT. interesting that its a philosophical split and not a split along north/south.
4. Acknowledgement that given the volumes of MEC communication, pilots were not communicated with regarding what was being negotiated.
5. The logic as to how CDO's became part of 117 (fatigue regulations) negotiations was because CDO's are covered in FAR 117. This was the open door used by the scheduling subcommittee to insert them into our opening position.
6. Company considered CDO's to be zero cost. Yet when we returned to ask for removal of them, the company gave their removal from the already signed TA to cost $4 million. So the loss of one hour to the long call leash and other stuff was determined by the company to be required to make them whole for their new additional cost of 4 million to remove CDO's that were a zero cost item when negotiations began.
Lots more stuff but this is already too long. MEC still very divided philosophically between guys like the CVG chairman who openly stated: 'we don't need MEMRAT because pilots don't have the time or the knowledge capacity to understand this stuff. That's why they hire us' ... and guys who believe just the opposite. No changes to that seen anytime soon
Carl
Which is why I didn't call because my guys would have felt obligated to call back. I wanted them to enjoy a few days peace.
Anyway, had a good conversation with my rep today. Here's a quick synopsis:
1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.
2. No mention of a pay no credit lookback between now and November.
3. MEC nearly equally split on need for MEMRAT. interesting that its a philosophical split and not a split along north/south.
4. Acknowledgement that given the volumes of MEC communication, pilots were not communicated with regarding what was being negotiated.
5. The logic as to how CDO's became part of 117 (fatigue regulations) negotiations was because CDO's are covered in FAR 117. This was the open door used by the scheduling subcommittee to insert them into our opening position.
6. Company considered CDO's to be zero cost. Yet when we returned to ask for removal of them, the company gave their removal from the already signed TA to cost $4 million. So the loss of one hour to the long call leash and other stuff was determined by the company to be required to make them whole for their new additional cost of 4 million to remove CDO's that were a zero cost item when negotiations began.
Lots more stuff but this is already too long. MEC still very divided philosophically between guys like the CVG chairman who openly stated: 'we don't need MEMRAT because pilots don't have the time or the knowledge capacity to understand this stuff. That's why they hire us' ... and guys who believe just the opposite. No changes to that seen anytime soon
Carl
Thanks for the report, overall most of that jives with what I've found out also.
05-27-2014 | 12:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
05-27-2014 | 01:07 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
While factually right about the MEC policy manual and Memrat, you have left out a key detail.
However, at one time not too long ago, the manual was changed. It had originally stated that any significant change to the contract, benefits, or work rules was to be Memrated.
That change was not made widely public to the members thus the confusion with the CDO abortion.
That is a change the baffles me as to why? Why change something that significant, particularly when trying to appear bottom up.
However, at one time not too long ago, the manual was changed. It had originally stated that any significant change to the contract, benefits, or work rules was to be Memrated.
That change was not made widely public to the members thus the confusion with the CDO abortion.
That is a change the baffles me as to why? Why change something that significant, particularly when trying to appear bottom up.
I have to ask you what does "significant" mean? How would you define "significant" so we all agree on the definition?
The policy manual reads:
Collective bargaining agreements that have been approved by the MEC and result from negotiations undertaken pursuant to both Section 28 of the PWA and Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act that both resolve all Section 6 issues and conclude Section 6 negotiations shall be subject to membership ratification. All other agreements shall be subject only to MEC ratification unless the MEC determines that an agreement should be subject to membership ratification.
Assuming you are aware of the policy manual's direction on how to communicate a TA prior to memrat (road shows, pubs, etc ...):
* Did you want membership ratification (with delays to making PD pilots whole)?
* What about your MEC unanimous vote in favor of the agreement?
* If yes, then what would be your suggested change to the policy manual?
My rep asked me about memrat and like everyone else around at that moment I replied "no reason with CDO's removed ... there is no significant change, just improvement." FWIW, the "significant change" litmus was still being used in the decision making process among the reps I communicated with.
I don't understand how memrat would have improved results for Delta pilots, yet I can see how memrat would have harmed Delta pilots by delaying the implementation of improvements and getting guys paid.
Interested on your thoughts on improvement.
05-27-2014 | 01:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
From: Left, left, left right left....
Alan,
The way to avoid this is to hold the NC accountable to bring back a TA that is strictly within the negotiating "box" directed by the Reps. The way it's supposed to work if they can't is to come back to the Reps for clarification or redirection, NOT get a TA that is outside one of the box parameters and then put the MEC in the position of accepting something less than directed or voting it down at a possible cost. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.
This is now the second time the Scrappy/Admin team has brought some item back less than directed and it is is completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter how good the rest is. They work for the elected status Reps and are duty bound to follow their direction. Signing a TA and dumping it in the Reps lap with less than the directed parameters to play on the fear of "we'll do worse, RA won't be happy with us, you'll undercut the NC, we can't have 19 negotiators in the room, etc, etc," is simply unacceptable. We managed to do better on this TA, but didn't make it that far on C2012.
The pilot group is supposed to be facing management on the other side of the table, with the MEC representing their will as embodied by the direction given by their elected status Reps. If that is not followed 100% it is not a good omen for a "historic" C2015
As an aside, there will likely always be a price to be paid for going back to amend an agreement once the initial handshake is complete. That is the downside of turning down a TA. That is not to say that we should simply rubberstamp everything our reps do, but we need to recognize that it's not as simple as it might otherwise sound.
Carl: 1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.
This is now the second time the Scrappy/Admin team has brought some item back less than directed and it is is completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter how good the rest is. They work for the elected status Reps and are duty bound to follow their direction. Signing a TA and dumping it in the Reps lap with less than the directed parameters to play on the fear of "we'll do worse, RA won't be happy with us, you'll undercut the NC, we can't have 19 negotiators in the room, etc, etc," is simply unacceptable. We managed to do better on this TA, but didn't make it that far on C2012.
The pilot group is supposed to be facing management on the other side of the table, with the MEC representing their will as embodied by the direction given by their elected status Reps. If that is not followed 100% it is not a good omen for a "historic" C2015
Last edited by Fly4hire; 05-27-2014 at 01:21 PM.
05-27-2014 | 01:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 193
The TA was 223 an hour. I think they have had a 3 percent raise since so call it 230.
05-27-2014 | 01:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
Quick Q: Is there any other way to travel on our JV partners than simply buying an eZed? On travel net, all those flights with JV partner legs have non-selectable radio heads.
Do we get any preferential boarding on JV partners as Delta employees or is standard eZed with the masses the only way to go?
Gracias!
Humboldt
Do we get any preferential boarding on JV partners as Delta employees or is standard eZed with the masses the only way to go?
Gracias!
Humboldt
05-27-2014 | 01:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 193
Alan,
The way to avoid this is to hold the NC accountable to bring back a TA that is strictly within the negotiating "box" directed by the Reps. The way it's supposed to work if they can't is to come back to the Reps for clarification or redirection, NOT get a TA that is outside one of the box parameters and then put the MEC in the position of accepting something less than directed or voting it down at a cost. This is now the second time the Scrappy/Admin team has done this, and it is is unacceptable. The work for the elected status Reps and are duty bound to follow their direction. Signing a TA with less than the directed parameters to play on the fear of "we'll do worse, RA won't be happy with us, you'll undercut the NC, we can't have 19 negotiators in the room, etc, etc," is simply unacceptable.
The way to avoid this is to hold the NC accountable to bring back a TA that is strictly within the negotiating "box" directed by the Reps. The way it's supposed to work if they can't is to come back to the Reps for clarification or redirection, NOT get a TA that is outside one of the box parameters and then put the MEC in the position of accepting something less than directed or voting it down at a cost. This is now the second time the Scrappy/Admin team has done this, and it is is unacceptable. The work for the elected status Reps and are duty bound to follow their direction. Signing a TA with less than the directed parameters to play on the fear of "we'll do worse, RA won't be happy with us, you'll undercut the NC, we can't have 19 negotiators in the room, etc, etc," is simply unacceptable.
05-27-2014 | 01:19 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
The Delta MEC Policy Manual is available on the ALPA / DMEC web site and downloaded in your document library if you used the iPubs or Box. If you understand the system, things worked like they were supposed to. We do not routinely memrat agreements unless it is the result of Section 6 bargaining. Our MEC could, but most view the MEC as a representative democracy and reps expect to take responsibility for the job by casting their vote.
I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.
The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.
As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.
I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.
Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.
I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.
The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.
As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.
I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.
Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.
And just as you mentioned this was a big deal and a huge negotiation outside of section 6, but it was also a rare one. How often does the FAA make an FAR change of this magnitude that requires contract negotiations? So if its a rather rare incident then unlike most LOAs maybe it deserved some rare extra attention by those who would be bound by it.
And not doing that was confusing to me because it stirs trouble.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
