I suspect with stock options there raises are a order of magnitude higher then your stating. However it's irrelevant to our pay.

I'll take a 20% increase in retirement and a 2% bump in pay.

I think we might be in good shape here. I think UCAL pay-rates go to 2016 and 2017 and lag us by about a year, so their current contract will eventually surpasses our 2015 pay-rates

AMR has the snap up to the average of DAL and UCAL and maybe someone else?

USAIR is no longer pulling down the weighted average pay.

SWA is the big wildcard - it would be nice to see them get a big increase and pull everyone else up.

FWIW - at the LAX 16 meeting the above was basically alluded to - any increase in our compensation would greatly influence the compensation of our competition. This could help us out quite a bit.

Scoop

You are kind of coming across as spoiled. If you don't live in ATL of course you have to commute in, probably the day prior for a short call that early. YOU made that choice when YOU decided not to live in base.

You know it wasn't that long ago when commuting to reserve at all was impossible. Before we had jumpseat and short call was twice a day "windows". Be more grateful. You have more options than I ever did.

Alpha,

Nice try mixing up various aspects of where process went off the rails. I never said policy manual, I referenced meeting vs. conference call, parliamentary process and where direction can be given. Roberts rules and all that. Meeting direction - yes, conference call - no. Any disagreement so far? It is fact the majority of the Reps said don't mess with PS on the CC , yet it happened. How do you think that happened? Where it happened was the MEC Ch and Neg Ch did not follow the process they laid out for the MEC for how they would handle the process if they were unable to meet direction. That was not manual, or Roberts, but thier word, which they broke.

Once it was in the MEC hands process was followed and the debate that took place followed process at that point. No I did not agree with vote, but THAT was democratic process. And as I recall I talked with just about everyone, and if you don't think it was a arm twist with the legions that appeared to plug for it until there were enough MEC votes to pass it I don't know what is.

What got us there was gerrymandered, or at the very least a heavy thumb on the scale. I have heard all your arguements before about negotiating committees of 19 Reps, and the authority of the Ch and Negs to cut a deal, closing, and that the MEC, pilots, etc. can always turn it down. And that all belies the fact that it was delivered to us in a flawed, arguably less than democratic fashion that many feel did not give Delta pilots the contract they desired, or expressed in the survey.

Of course you and others argued that if we turn it down we'd get worse, undermine Negotiators credibility, end up parked by the NMB, end up like AMR, lose the TVM of money, etc. which of course is an argument that you can't really turn anything down and that once a TA is achieved the momentum on it being ratified is high and turned down low, which was IMO the whole reason to do the deal before the MEC had a chance to object to the result, which was of course this was entirely premeditated. Never mind a negotiator I privately cornered who I asked what would happen if we did and stated we'd probably be back in negotiations the next day and have a better deal in two weeks, but his was a minority opinion also.

Again, I have no problem being in the minority - I usually am. What I do have a problem with is not following process - the entire way, including the closing of the TA, and redirection if stated goals are not met. If you want to accuse me of pandering, sour grapes and all the other nonsense your bedside manner is notorious for, from the winners version of history have at it. I won't even fire back with hyperbole at how offensive I find your condescension from your smartest guy in the room view point, and that I think it does not serve the best interest of the Delta pilots. Apparently majority of Reps had enough heartburn with what occurred to lose confidence in OM and try a different direction with King. As has been evidenced some on the MEC don't like changing direction, which does does not bode well for C2015 IMO.

What I AM concerned is that the MEC admin and Negs fight for the contract the pilots say they desire and the Reps direct them to attain, and if not they get proper redirection and follow it.

Democracy also means as a facilitator thereof as a member of the MEC administration you follow the direction you are given, not create your own.

Only move to Peachtree City when you're tired of complaining.

Smart move, if they do call you out for a trip that creates a 100 and 28 conflict you get paid for the drop!

I can't. I don't have the hottest wife, the kids go to public school, they aren't the best athletes on the team, and they don't get the best grades. ;)

All of that helps. The snap up is a incentive to our management to get it done quickly and perhaps front load the raises to bump the snap up to a higher level. Still UAL won't exceed our rates until 1 Jan 2018. 2 years past our amenable date.
The wild card is pilot sentiment once we reach the amendable date. Delta is running a very efficient operation at the present. Any reduction in the efficiency of the operation could snowball. Historically over the last 15 years unhappy pilots have had little impact on operations. That might be a different story at Delta given the reliance on min staffing. They could however mitigate that with increased hiring or a block hour reduction or both.

Sorry, but you are still trying to change the rules after the fact. You want things done the way you want them done and you claim anything else is undemocratic.

You keep trying to confuse the issue. You say this isn't the contract the pilots desired or put in their survey. Of course not. Wanting and getting are two different things in life. I put down "Major League Left Fielder" in my job preference survey in high school and desired it real bad. I guess that makes me a Yankee now, huh.

The survey is taken entirely out of any context, meaning you ask someone "Do you want more pay" "Yes" "Do you want more vacation" "Yes" "Do you want more retirement" "Yes" and on and on. The vote on the contract is the ultimate survey; "Do you want to accept this exact contract at this exact time". The pilots said yes. You can't accept that, so now you claim the "flaw in the process." Every time I hear that I really hear "I lost the vote so now I am making excuses."

The fact is, if the MEC wants to make take it or leave it offers to management, then get rid of the negotiators. Email them over your demands and then wait for their response. If you call them negotiators, then they are negotiating. By definition that means give and take. If the negotiators have no give and take, then save the money, send them home and make your demands. Otherwise, once you call them negotiators, they have to have flexibility to cut a deal. The last time I heard a car salesman tell me "I have to go talk to my manager" I told him to bring me the manager because I will only deal with someone who can cut a deal. I am not going to waste my time haggling with someone who has no authority.

The policy manual explicitly gives the negotiating committee the authority to negotiate and reach a TENTATIVE agreement with management. If the MEC doesn't want that to be their policy then change it. Until then, those are the rules, they were followed, but you don't like the outcome. The MEC had the full authority to reject the TA and move on. They chose not to. The pilots had the full authority to reject the TA and move on. They chose not to. That is democracy in its purest form.

This continued mis/disinformation campaign must accomplish something in your mind, what that is exactly escapes me.

It is funny how you frame the discussion. If you try to convince someone to adopt your position you are just stating the facts. If I do the same I am arm twisting or selling. If you try to support your opinion that is okay, if I do it I am condescending and the "smartest guy in the room". I understand that this is the way of the internet, if you can't win on the facts then attack the messenger. At some point you will find that facts matter more than attacks but until you reach that point you will still be disappointed with your results to persuade.