Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

I know and don't necessarily believe their number. It did however get me thinking about the 16% projection that's been out for the last 9 months. I first heard the number back in March. It makes me wonder if the falling oil prices will boost our profits and our profit sharing hire.

Carl Spackler

12-04-2014 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775910)

I'd love to have an intelligent debate on the merits of this agreement, but neither of us has the data, yet.

But the MEC wouldn't love that at all Bar. A minority of our reps have asked for that data to be released so they can have a discussion with us about exactly what this will mean regarding an initial gain or loss of flying...among many other things. The MEC administration has the data, but has refused to disclose it outside of closed sessions. Thus any of your desired "intelligent debate" is impossible outside of closed session until and after the TA is approved and a binding addition to our Scope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775910)

The Negotiating Committee will eventually publish a notepad document. Until we read that document there is a lot of factual data we just don't yet have.

Again, that notepad will "eventually" be published AFTER the TA is ratified. Then we'll have the data...to discuss the TA...that has already passed.

Carl

Bucking Bar

12-04-2014 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1775954)

This illustrates the divide within our LEC reps. Some reps agree with the Bucking Bar theory that once negotiations begin, the reps are done with the process except for their guaranteed ratification of whatever is brought to them by the negotiating committee. These people literally believe the reps have no authority to do anything else. I wish there was a way to know how many ATL line pilots believe this as well.

Carl

Carl,

First, let invite you to run and see how many pilots support your positions. .. you can get approval to run out of base.

Second, will the DPA encourage modification of done deals? If so, how would you get deals done?

Denny Crane

12-04-2014 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775910)

Should we follow the established process, or run amok?

We elected our Reps. We have known the VA TA was being worked on for a year and have had ample opportunity to provide input. The Reps directed the negotiators and the negotiators negotiated the language which is being considered by our MEC.

If you believe what you just wrote above, what is the problem with allowing one more opportunity for input?

We have no reason to believe the MEC is (or has authority to) make post agreement modifications to the language. This isn't a bill in Congress. It is negotiation with management.

Yes, you are correct. But I seem to remember a recent agreement (117) where the NC was directed to go back to management and modify the agreement. So it can be done.

Do you not trust that your Reps and your MEC, who are all line pilots, fought for more wide body flying? Did you fail to notice Delta's wide body RFP was decided in a way that provides growth just about the same instant an agreement was reached on the TA?

Yes I trust my reps but I also feel like 1200000+ minds are better than 16(?) when thinking about modifications.

I have no idea if any of these facts correlate and outside of a properly small group of people who have access to Delta's strategic business plan, none of us knows. I'd love to have an intelligent debate on the merits of this agreement, but neither of us has the data, yet.

The Negotiating Committee will eventually publish a notepad document. Until we read that document there is a lot of factual data we just don't yet have.

What we do know is that we elected the best candidates and we all agree on wide body protection and growth. We know that management respects a negotiating team who has the full support of their pilots.

The Dude supports his MEC and negotiators. It is in our mutual best interest to empower our MEC.

Again, I support our MEC but I see no reason for this LOA, or any LOA etc., not to be available to the rank and file so as to provide input before the final MEC vote. Why is that so wrong?

Denny

Carl Spackler

12-04-2014 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775910)

What we do know is that we elected the best candidates and we all agree on wide body protection and growth.

It doesn't matter who we've elected Bar. The MEC administration runs this show and we didn't elect them. Your 4 LEC reps are strong proponents of being a rubber stamp for the MEC administration. My reps vehemently disagree, but are in the minority. Thus the anger and disunity on our MEC. It's absolute tyranny of the majority on the MEC right now and it's being enabled by the four ATL reps. My only question is whether those four really represent the majority view of ATL based pilots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775910)

We know that management respects a negotiating team who has the full support of their pilots.

Our negotiators do NOT have that now Bar and it's a totally self-inflicted wound. They've chosen to be part of the strategy of ruling top-down in an organization that advertises itself as bottom-up. A minority of our reps are fighting that hard. I support that 100%. The majority shows no sign of compromising in any way with the minority. They're only trying to actively crush them. Utterly dysfunctional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775910)

The Dude supports his MEC and negotiators. It is in our mutual best interest to empower our MEC.

It is this mindless jingoism that has brought us to where we are. It is in our best interest for the MEC administration to operate in and cultivate a bottom-up culture. They refuse. And they send out people like you to convey veiled threats against anything other than supporting the MEC administration.

The fight's on between the jingoists and the bottom-ups Bar. You guys are counting on the continued apathy and dejection of the pilot group. You guys might be right, but we'll see.

Carl

gzsg	12-04-2014 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1776037)

Again, I support our MEC but I see no reason for this LOA, or any LOA etc., not to be available to the rank and file so as to provide input before the final MEC vote. Why is that so wrong?

Denny

Exactly. We have some great minds in our group. The quiet ones.

Carl Spackler

12-04-2014 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWagman (Post 1775968)

Thanks Carl for keeping us fired up! I encourage everyone to weigh in with your reps to ensure Delta pilots keep/gain widebody flying!

Thanks man, but that ship has sailed. This TA will pass exactly as is because the MEC administration has decided they won't allow the debate that helped us modify the FAR 117 LOA to occur this time. The MEC administration has ordered a 100% data lockdown until after the TA is passed and becomes binding. The four ATL reps are in lock step agreement with the MEC administration and will run interference for them until this passes.

What can still happen is the realization by line pilots that our current negotiating committee affirmatively negotiated the exact same kind of language that has brought us the multi-year non compliance in our AF/KLM/AZ Joint Venture. This negotiating committee is HAPPY with this language. They think it's a good thing. This is the exact same negotiating committee that will now take us into C2015.

Our only shot here is an effort by ATL based pilots to recall all four of the reps in favor of four new ones committed to a bottom-up culture. If that could happen, it would give a majority to the LEC reps and allow a clean slate restart of the MEC administration. ATL line pilots are the key to this. If this MEC administration takes us to C2015, we are sunk. This LOA language is proof of it.

Carl

Bucking Bar

12-04-2014 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1776041)

The fight's on between the jingoists and the bottom-ups Bar.

Carl

Carl,

There will always be a small percentage who would rather flight their fellow pilots than fight for their fellow pilots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1776041)

... they send out people like you to convey veiled threats against anything other than supporting the MEC administration.
Carl

Nobody sent me anywhere. Yet again you are stating stuff that just is not true.

Carl Spackler

12-04-2014 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dorfman (Post 1775977)

Carl

I may not agree with everything you say but this I do 100%! This is my biggest issue with ALPA, transparency. If DALPA wants to bring the DPA supporters back into the fold and create unity they have to stop with this type of action.

They don't care either way about DPA supporters being back in the fold man. Any more than they care about anyone's support. The MEC administration feels they have the process locked up and they are there for life. They have a very effective political slander machine against any reps who stray. The new kid in ATL saw this during the recall hearings of Kingsley Roberts when he tried to perform as he campaigned he would. He was beaten into submission when the other 3 ATL reps threatened him with a guaranteed recall if he didn't vote in alignment with them. Now the new kid is a lock step supporter of the other 3 ATL reps.

ATL line pilots could change it all if they wished for the change to occur. I just don't know if they do.

Carl

Carl Spackler

12-04-2014 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775998)

The Reps have done just as you have directed.

Translation: When you voted for your rep, that's all the direction you'll ever be permitted to give. When the reps give their direction to the negotiating committee prior to negotiations, that's the end of their input...even if the negotiators don't follow the direction. Reps should then vote down the TA you say? Can't do that because management doesn't respect negotiators who don't have full support of the MEC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1775998)

What little I have gleaned indicates an improvement on existing Section 1 E language.

I've posted the exact language, so you already know whether it's a language improvement or not. But with you, the language doesn't matter anyway because: "The Dude supports his MEC"...right?

Carl

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Page 17356 of 20174