|
|
|
Originally Posted by DelDah Capt
(Post 1680442)
There's only one superior classic design......they shoulda' gone with the 2x3
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tABTyNqA_7.../md88cabin.jpg |
Think of training Detla pilots as a ball management has to swallow. Today it is the size of an asprin.
Each day for the next 15 years it grows larger. Next year a marble. And not long after that a tennis ball. Eventually a bowling ball. Management turning their backs on us in C2015 as some describe, will not be a good choice. The challenges upcoming will require an unprecedented level of cooperation never seen before in our industry. Our concessions are no longer necessary, Why will management negotiate? Because it's the right thing to do. |
Originally Posted by DelDah Capt
(Post 1680442)
There's only one superior classic design......they shoulda' gone with the 2x3
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tABTyNqA_7.../md88cabin.jpg We need to get you your own dedicated thread. It would have more views than any other thread! TEN |
Originally Posted by check essential
(Post 1680473)
almost game time.
http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpre...rls-500-25.jpg ^^^^^ perfect size for ten! https://bigpapadaddy.files.wordpress...rgentina37.jpg ^^^^too skinny and fake. |
Last night, we had to go back to the gate due to FAR 117. We were going to go over 9 hours block for day if we took off. We laid over, then deadheaded back to base this morning on our off day. My time card is showing reroute pay, but it is still open. Will that reroute pay stick?
|
Just read the Council 20 update. It still boggles my mind that after we negotiated 117, we still might have to defend ourselves to the CPO for NOT willing to EXCEED our FAR limit. This extension incorporated into the new FAR is such crap. Why make a limit and then allow it to be extended.
|
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1680380)
I was hoping to have a discussion on this most important of topics without the snarkiness and baiting of people to respond in kind. So I'll ignore the snark.
We would never go into negotiations saying there's "nothing they want that we will listen to." Concessions with no gains are accepted by us when our company is in trouble. Gains without concessions used to be the norm when our companies were strong. Now we're in this new paradigm where every gain has to somehow be cost accounted by a concession in other areas. If now isn't the time to be demanding a no concession contract, then that time will never exist again. This doesn't mean we don't listen and accept change that can be good for the airline operation, as that's perfectly acceptable in negotiations. What we shouldn't accept in this environment is concessionary change when we're the only employee group at Delta that is not back to their pre-bankruptcy wages, and our company is stronger than its ever been. Alfa, that's not the path American pilots followed to get parked and you know it. I'm certain that you know it. The path American took was to open every section of their contract demanding a restoration on day 1. This included immediate pay raises back to pre 9/11 levels and all their other work rules returned at a time when everyone else was in bankruptcy. In the end, the NMB stated that the open issues were far too numerous for the NMB to narrow, and that one side (American pilots) were asking for financial gains that would bankrupt AMR. So they got parked. That's the path American pilots followed and the environment in which they followed it Alfa. Carl Your position now is that it is good faith bargaining if we allow management to change the contract as long as there is no value in the changes they seek. We, however are allowed to seek changes with value, supposedly a lot of value. If you want to have a rational conversation then let's stay rational. You try to point out that concessions are always 1 for 1 with gains. This goes back to your failed argument that C2012 was like that. Instead, it was shown that the gains in C2012 were not even close to offset by the concessions offered. The gains dwarfed the concessions by a very large amount. That is the concept I am talking about. You can have concessions in a contract that are dwarfed by your gains. That is positive, good faith bargaining. I have never seen a contract that didn't have both gains and losses. In C2K there were many concessions, mostly in work rules. In bankruptcy, both Delta and Northwest were given claims to an ownership share in the newly reorganized company. Delta also got a $650 million cash payment as returns. I have never seen the costing of the Northwest bankruptcy deal, but in the Delta deal the value of our returns ended up eclipsing the value of our concessions, including the loss of the pension plan. Rather than speculate on the views of the NMB, perhaps we should listen to exactly what they told the Delta MEC. They told the MEC that they will only listen to negotiations that are in the zone of reasonableness. What is that zone? According to the NMB they alone define that zone. Stray outside that zone and you go to the penalty box. The APA strayed outside that zone and that is what got them parked. USAPA strayed outside that zone that is what got them parked. If you think the zone of reasonableness includes management being prohibited from achieving any of their goals, absent zero cost changes (I would love to have some examples of no cost changes to our contract, because after costing out two of them, I find everything has a value) then I think you are kidding yourself. I have never seen any negotiation where one side is barred from trying to solve at least some of their economic issues. Everyone, including the company, would expect this next negotiation to include a net gain for the pilots. If you want to get that net gain sooner rather than later, then you should expect to listen to management's problems, address them to the extent can, and then collect the rest of the money. That is not concessionary bargaining, that is realistic, good faith bargaining. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1680440)
Well, not really if you know how to use them. What I've seen "breaking" is the lighting, IFE and PA systems because Flight Attendants either have had no training, or have blown off whatever training they were provided with. The most common corrective entry in the log is "turned system on." :(
Turning on a cabin light is a two push process and can be a four step process depending on how the thing is configured front to back. Then we have the towel dispensers and garbage receptacles which have difficult to find remote latches and $10 an hour employees trying to service without sufficient time, or while boarding is taking place. I am slightly more understanding of their issues since they aren't making $50,000 + a year to do two drink services on a 6 hour flight. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:28 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands