Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-14-2014, 09:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,306
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Allowing an additional 70 jumbo RJ's never came up either, and any reduction in profit sharing had to be specifically authorized by the MEC before the negotiators could sign off on a TA. Yet the negotiators signed off anyway. I think Jerry is absolutely right about too often the reps are the last to know.
My concern is that it is a company/DALPA effort. Given what happened with CDO's during the 117 negotiations, the MEC admins see what can happen when pilots find stuff out in this era of social media. The concern is that this time the MEC admins will keep a tight lid on what they're planning with our management partners, and not release it until the signed TA is sitting in front of the reps to either sign or "ruin everything" by not signing.
Many of us are going to use social media to try and stop the MEC admins from doing this again. Don't know if we'll be successful, but we're going to try.
Carl
My concern is that it is a company/DALPA effort. Given what happened with CDO's during the 117 negotiations, the MEC admins see what can happen when pilots find stuff out in this era of social media. The concern is that this time the MEC admins will keep a tight lid on what they're planning with our management partners, and not release it until the signed TA is sitting in front of the reps to either sign or "ruin everything" by not signing.
Many of us are going to use social media to try and stop the MEC admins from doing this again. Don't know if we'll be successful, but we're going to try.
Carl
07-14-2014, 09:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by NERD
F'em. They don't belong in out lounges period. Let them sleep in the terminal. This includes FA's too. They have their own in Atlanta most likely better than ours and I still see them in there. Guarantee you if we started hanging in theirs we'd be told to leave. Totally unsat of the chief pilots office for not enforcing this. Furthermore, you should be able to leave anything out in the open without fear of theft.
07-14-2014, 09:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Allowing an additional 70 jumbo RJ's never came up either, and any reduction in profit sharing had to be specifically authorized by the MEC before the negotiators could sign off on a TA. Yet the negotiators signed off anyway. I think Jerry is absolutely right about too often the reps are the last to know.Carl
I certainly won't disagree with the part about the profit sharing, but the reps were fully aware of the additional jumbo RJ's as that was what the negotiations were predicated on.
07-14-2014, 09:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by gzsg
Scoop
Hoping I am wrong, but hearing it from many reliable sources.
Remember your reps are the last to know. Many will whine, but the admin on full time flight pay loss that have been there for years, put these back door deals together.
New RA goals, 50% reduction in training costs and 5 year freezes.
No concessions necessary.
Jerry
Hoping I am wrong, but hearing it from many reliable sources.
Remember your reps are the last to know. Many will whine, but the admin on full time flight pay loss that have been there for years, put these back door deals together.
New RA goals, 50% reduction in training costs and 5 year freezes.
No concessions necessary.
Jerry
Two things about extending the training freeze, it had been suggested before (again from line pilots on the old forum) as a way to "force" seats to go more junior, but the response from ALPA "experts" was that beyond a couple of years, there was really no cost advantage to the company. (And they provided some data)
I know some insiders frequent this forum, maybe they can comment on the difference between a 2 and 5 year freeze and how much it theoretically might save?
Also, although most pilots are not single issue voters, when you see something as extreme as a 5 year freeze during a period of upward seat movement, I think that would be a possible deal breaker for many.
07-14-2014, 09:58 AM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Carl, pay banding is a myth Jerry made up. There are no discussions with the company on the subject and none have been requested.
He's saying they will be a factor in C15 negotiations.
But you knew that. Or are you going to state for the record that they won't be on the table for C15?
07-14-2014, 10:20 AM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
A's out. Still no backdoor Bs.
On another note, I recently had Crew Tracking tell me I had to accept 2 hour duty extension without any choice, it was a contractual obligation. They changed their tune a bit when pressed, but then said it would be a fitness for duty issue if I declined and I'd have to talk to CP. And of course no one even contacted us, or mentioned the flight was delayed, until I noticed things were taking us an hour over our "max duty" printed on the rotation.
That's not how I understood all the changes and FAA interpretations.
All the back and forth here, as well as this event with company, convinces me that without a lawyer on the phone, you can't really be sure what your obligations or limits are in the middle of an IROP. I was absolutely flat out told I had no choice in the matter, and then pushed veeeerry strongly.
On another note, I recently had Crew Tracking tell me I had to accept 2 hour duty extension without any choice, it was a contractual obligation. They changed their tune a bit when pressed, but then said it would be a fitness for duty issue if I declined and I'd have to talk to CP. And of course no one even contacted us, or mentioned the flight was delayed, until I noticed things were taking us an hour over our "max duty" printed on the rotation.
That's not how I understood all the changes and FAA interpretations.
All the back and forth here, as well as this event with company, convinces me that without a lawyer on the phone, you can't really be sure what your obligations or limits are in the middle of an IROP. I was absolutely flat out told I had no choice in the matter, and then pushed veeeerry strongly.
07-14-2014, 10:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,306
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
He's not saying discussions are taking place now.
He's saying they will be a factor in C15 negotiations.
But you knew that. Or are you going to state for the record that they won't be on the table for C15?
He's saying they will be a factor in C15 negotiations.
But you knew that. Or are you going to state for the record that they won't be on the table for C15?
07-14-2014, 10:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
I agree. Delta pilots only in our lounges. No DCI pilots, no flight attendants. I always wonder why there are sometimes FA's using the computers in the ATL pilot lounge when their lounge is right across the road. We never go in to the DCI pilot lounges.
07-14-2014, 10:31 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Position: Capt
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by RonRicco
Did you miss the part about "not saying I agree with it."
My only point is that the CEO is doing what you would expect a CEO to do, increase shareholder wealth. So I don't agree with the premise that the company is giving back money to the shareholders because they have nothing else to do with the cash. For the most part, giving it to us does not meet the goals of the shareholders, otherwise it would be easy at contract time right?
I bet most on this forum own stock. I know I shoot for ones that will appreciate and pay an ever increasing dividend. As a "stakeholder" here, my goals are obviously different, although nothing prevents us from being both.
Not sure how stating a business principle puts me on the 4th floor? But this is the "ready, fire, aim" forum most of the time.
My only point is that the CEO is doing what you would expect a CEO to do, increase shareholder wealth. So I don't agree with the premise that the company is giving back money to the shareholders because they have nothing else to do with the cash. For the most part, giving it to us does not meet the goals of the shareholders, otherwise it would be easy at contract time right?
I bet most on this forum own stock. I know I shoot for ones that will appreciate and pay an ever increasing dividend. As a "stakeholder" here, my goals are obviously different, although nothing prevents us from being both.
Not sure how stating a business principle puts me on the 4th floor? But this is the "ready, fire, aim" forum most of the time.
The Union (leadership AND representatives) should do what the pilots expect them to do...fight for the best and most lucrative contract they can get...not just settle for a "risk adverse" compromise.
LP
07-14-2014, 10:48 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Back door B's out LAX
W. T. F.
LAX pairing credits suck! Back to reserve, why the heck did we allow the company until Nov to pay ADC 5:15 and we gave the short call away right now? Who the frick agreed to that! LAX got shafted again....
LAX pairing credits suck! Back to reserve, why the heck did we allow the company until Nov to pay ADC 5:15 and we gave the short call away right now? Who the frick agreed to that! LAX got shafted again....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
