Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1670099)

Carl, I read that section of the thread. No where duped you post a actual statement that I could find. There were rebuttals to what you posted from other pilots. Here is one of the best.

Anything is possible, but none of what you've suggested as possible was ever said by management. They had plenty of opportunity to add these nuances that you suggest, but they chose not to. I believe they chose not to because it's not what they meant. They meant exactly what they said whcih was: 'The TA will be cost neutral to Delta, and the cost savings will fund other priorities as well...'

Except that's not what they said then, or now.

I think it's because you're trying to hang on to a scenario that today's evidence makes all but impossible. You're hanging on to that scenario by putting words into the mouths of our management team that they never said.

Carl
Carl,

At the risk of using too many big words for you I will restate my points. Our entire contract is not cost neutral to Delta. It is cost positive to Delta. Our labor produces revenues that dwarf the cost of our contract. Delta charges their customers much more money than it costs Delta to pay us including benefits.

So what you are trying to do is play word games. If our contract changes were Cost Neutral to Delta then it is even more of a win since in general pilot costs are 1 in 18 of all revenue. What you and your friends are trying to do is confuse people into thinking that this was cost neutral for Delta PILOTS. It was not cost neutral to Delta pilots, in fact it was a giant pay and benefit increase for Delta pilots.

If senior management describes a business plan that covers the cost of pilot labor, gate agent labor, aircraft ownership costs, fuel, swizzle sticks, and on and on, then that should be about as Earth shattering as the fact that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Of course they cover their costs. How would they stay in business if they didn't?

The union's job is to carve out as much of that revenue as is possible for pilots. They should not care what the sources of that revenue are and they should understand that in all cases, our pay and benefits will be dwarfed by total revenue, they have to be or the company will go out of business.

So you are trying to confuse pilots into thinking that it is cost neutral from a pilot perspective and that is wrong. Why some reps try to play that same game, including some incoming reps is beyond me. However, the Delta pilots were not confused, they understand that pay and benefits are going up by about 25-30% all in and productivity is increasing by about 1-2%. Everyone knows that 25-30% is more than 1-2%. That is the critical factor, that is what pays the bills, that is what improves the lives of pilots. That is why these 5 reps could not articulate a single plan that made any sense that would have improved upon these results. Hoping that management will just come back for more is not a plan that is self delusion.

All the rest of this is just obfuscation where you are trying to confuse people into thinking that there is something sinister with the fact that Delta has to produce much more revenue that even our improved TA costs them. Delta managers describe that most basic fact and you treat it like it is some magic revelation.

Our pay hit the amendable date 12.85% above our previous rate, a record achievement. To be cost neutral to Delta pilots we would have to reduce our headcount by 1,400 pilots. Given 200 early outs, that means I must have missed the 1,200 furlough notices that were handed out. That would be cost neutral.

Originally Posted by Rather B Fishin (Post 1670175)

Please read the RLA. Have you ever heard of the legal term "fly now, grieve later"?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1670826)

Exactly where in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) is the legal term "fly now, grieve later?"

Also, under what legislative action has the phrase "fly now, grieve later" been constituted as a legal term?

Carl

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1670840)

Carl,

The RLA stipulates “work now (i.e. transport the goods) and grieve later.” This phrase was extrapolated from the stated purpose of the law; to prevent disruptions of commerce and to instead provide a means for resolution of disputes.

Your would have to research Court decisions which have interpreted Congress's language in the RLA. In a nutshell, the exceptions are that workers are not required to perform tasks that they reasonably believe to be unsafe. Workers are also not required to perform when the request is “clearly” a violation of the contract. (The courts have interpreted this to mean that if the company can make a reasonable claim that the contract justifies their request –regardless of whether they are right or wrong – then the employee should err on the side of performing the work, and grieving the incident later.)

Courier, Express, and Postal Observer: Negotiating under the Railway Labor Act

45 U.S. Code § 151a - General purposes | LII / Legal Information Institute

45 U.S. Code § 156 - Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Originally Posted by EdGrimley (Post 1670886)

What the....

Delta Air CEO to back U.S. Export-Import Bank support to Boeing: WSJ | Reuters

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1670821)

This is the second time you've done this sailingfun. Instead of linking my post, you type things that you attribute to me. I can't even tell who's saying what here.

Here's the bottom line. Our executive management described C2012 as a cost neutral contract. They used the exact words "cost neutral." You and the MEC went on a furious campaign to define what they really meant by cost neutral, but management never came out and agreed with yours and the MEC's definition of cost neutral.

You seem to be on a strategy of waiting 2.5 years, then demanding someone find posts that you don't remember. I have no desire nor time to find those posts because it wouldn't matter to you anyway. So continue to carry water for whoever's agenda you support, but many of us here remember this very clearly.

Good luck with your attempt at revising history.

Carl

Originally Posted by Flamer (Post 1670581)

The precedent was set that the contract is written in pencil and the company can unilaterally make changes while waiting to negotiate on their timeline later. The union will not do anything about it. I do not like being bullied.

You are happy because it was faster. Typical in America today. Do what is easy and quick even if it isn't right. The failure of the means is what is being overlooked here. A brilliant play by the company in my opinion. Made most of you happy and willing to overlook the next abrogation of the contract based on what you perceive here as a win.