|
|
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1823334)
Yeahbutt...which one would you rather sleep with??
Unless Beck swallows, I rest my case on who's got the most... 'talent'!:D |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1823007)
To piggyback on where the company is going (and I can't believe we're even talking about concessions), here's an excerpt from the Council 1 update I got from my MSP buddy:
Wow. Here comes a "minimum month." And are we required to answer any questions from management regarding our "outside business interests?" I can't imagine so. MYOFB. |
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 1823329)
And inaccurate. While correct that it was a conference call and not a special meeting, it is inaccurate that the Neg ch and MEC ch acted contrary to the will the MEC expressed during the conference call with regards to profit sharing. Not a single rep wrote otherwise in the varied opinions expressed after the TA. If you can produce one signed council comm (still available on the Council web pages) that states that the MEC ch and Neg ch acted contrary to the will the MEC expressed on the May 12th Conf call, with regards to monetizing profit sharing, then show it.
Furthermore, the insinuation that the MEC couldn't call, or was convinced not to call, a special meeting flies in the face of previous action. From a C20 Update (when the C20 reps attempted to block a normal negotiator election so that the C2012 Neg com would not be challenged) "A MEC informational conference call was scheduled for Tuesday, July 5th. The topic of the conference call was to discuss possible negotiating committee elections. A majority of the MEC viewed this method of communication as an impractical and unfeasible method to determine an issue of this magnitude. Per the MEC Policy Manual one third of the MEC, voting members, can call a special meeting. Two thirds of the MEC requested a MEC Special Meeting in lieu of an informational conference call in writing to the MEC Chairman." Yet these same reps supposedly accepted a conference call on monetizing profit sharing in lieu of a special meeting. Nope, sorry, that doesn't add up. On their next update they state that they were against a negotiator election: "The representatives in DTW, MSP, SEA, and Captain Brian Craig (ATL) voted against holding a negotiating committee election." It's interesting that the 5 no votes on the TA were so enamored with the negotiating committee that negotiated C2012, that they attempted to block a normal election cycle. Additionally, contrary to the fiction that is being spread by some here that the MEC ch and Neg ch TA'd the agreement, that is also false. The MEC ch did not TA the agreement, that was done by the Negotiating Committee in their offices, with the MEC ch out of the room. The four committee members voted unanimously to TA the agreement and send it to the MEC. Wow, Pretty interesting that someone that was on the call has such a poor recollection of what was actually said during the call! Lets see if you can recall that the conference call was considered "confidential" by the MEC and that the reps you say did not write about the call were not allowed to write about the call. The obfuscation about Negotiation Committee elections and special meetings is totally irrelevant! minor point! Do you recall how every person on the call had at least two chances to state their opinion and that many of them stated that the pilot surveys and inputs to them did not lean toward trading one type of compensation for another? Guess you don't recall that. Do you recall that toward the end of the call the majority stated that trading PS for "extra" percentages was NOT a good idea? Maybe not a consensus but a majority was against a trade. Guess not! Do you recall that multiple reps asked what the percentage increases would be looking like before accepting a trade? Do you remember the BS answer? The answer was (just 36 hours before the T/A was accepted) that pay rates had not been discussed yet! Did you get that...rates had not been discussed before the reps were asked by the NC and the MEC Chairman to consider a reduction in PS!!! Do you remember that the NC told the reps repeatedly during the negotiations that their mandate was to "lather, rinse, repeat" which was supposed to mean they they negotiate to what the reps had directed and if they needed to they would come back for re-direction? Where was the re-direction phase? Do you remember what our MEC Chairman stated during his "We've got a T/A" speech on Monday morning...to paraphrase: "we need not worry about what the pilots said in their surveys, we know better" (if you want an exact quote, it was in one of the Seattle reps updates). Sounds like Reroute has a problem memory IF he was actually on the call (or just a selective memory) LP |
I'm here... and I refuse to go to this site from my phone. What an AWFUL new formatting. Ima squawk that to the higher ups.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming. http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Con...a4_4276267.jpg |
Remember, customer engagement is a priority.
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1823297)
Wow. The attack dogs are out in full force. Sleeper is jumping right in as one of the usual suspects with a new screen name. Reroute only shows up to do DALPA's dirty work. D. Mantooth...out of the woodwork, makes an unprovable claim that he "was on the call." Then he claims the "burden of proof" is on Carl. That's not the way it works.
You can't make this stuff up. Purple, you beat your wife. Prove you don't. See? I made an accusation. The burden of proof is on me. As long as I'm accusing, I might as well continue with the accusations and include some guesses. You are the most rude and unpleasant poster on APC. I'm going to guess that you were hired in 2007 or 2008. (As long as we're on the theme, prove me wrong.). If so, since your hire date, you've had nothing but raises every single year (unheard of in this industry). You've never faced the threat of bankruptcy or lived through its evils. You've never been furloughed. You've never walked a picket line, volunteered for your Union, or done a single thing to help your fellow pilots. I'm sure you think yourself as some keyboard warrior, helping everyone by holding feet to the fire, but nobody notices. You're doing nothing except annoying the handful of people who view this forum. Your compensation has risen 53% (not counting profit sharing, equity stake, and moving to higher-paying equipment) from the rate that you begged to fly for in your interview, but instead of showing appreciation to the union responsible or volunteering to help continue the trend, you'd rather act like a nasty misantrope during every post. I certainly hope you're not like this in real life. Prove that I'm wrong. Isn't that how it works? |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1822983)
Profit sharing is just another cost item in the contract. It has a value just like every item. In the end I look at the total value of the contract. That ends up being what it costs Delta per block hour to staff their aircraft. That's the number the company cares about. Sadly pilots often put to much emphasis on the direct compensation numbers and not enough on the soft items. There is no one section of the contract that will be a deal breaker. Overall however if you look at the delta pilot block hour costs Dalpa has done a good job trying to balance out the contracts.
While we ***** on here about profit sharing that no one has mentioned giving up at Dalpa and the company has not even hinted they want changed there are real issues ongoing the company does want changed that have huge quality of life implications to the pilot group. Carl and Jerry only post items that they believe can be manipulated to cast Dalpa in a bad light. They have no interest in anything but hurting Dalpa regardless of the negative impact it has on the pilot group as a whole. They toss things on the wall and hope they stick or spin up the forum while we ignore real threats. The company if you read what they put out has made it very clear what they are going to emphasis on the coming contract. It's going to be productivity, productivity and more productivity. The threat in this area most don't even recognize. There are new scheduling programs that will give the company the ability to reschedule the entire operation in real time. One flight cancels for a mechanical and the computer in a matter of seconds spits out a min cost solution that reroutes 57 crews. SD alluded to this in one of his recent memos. Their new found computing power is increasing reroutes and decreasing premium pay. They will in real time be able to optimize the entire operation on a minute by minute basis. Essentially once you sign in for a trip every flight the company has scheduled could be a big pot of open time for the company. The company builds the current rotations to a cost solution that is only accurate until the first flight cancels or is late. The new computer systems will be able to put out a new min cost solution with every change. The contractual work rules in the contract are all that is keeping the company from going to a active real time scheduling system. As pilots we will not like that. There is a grievance filed that is of huge importance to the pilot group that I don't think has had a single post on this forum. It deals with uncovered flight segments more then 14 hours out. The company agreed that segments known more then 14 hours out will be sent to crew scheduling to be built as open time. They have reneged on that and are sending those segments to the new super premium reroute computer. This is a huge grievance and of far more importance then the 1 to 2 flights per day the company failed to fly in the AF/KLM JV. I will start to sound hysterical like Jerry always is but this could cost us into 4 digits worth of jobs if the company wins the grievance and can get other seemingly innocuous changes in work rules. My point in posting this is I suspect the company will throw a lot of dollars in pay charts. The devil will be in the work rules. Imagine departing on every rotation knowing that rotation is being evaluated for change every minute based on the real time status of the operation! Its happening as we speak and multiple crews are being rerouted to keep one flight from going 10 minutes late. Think about a computer that views every credit minute on every rotation as something to be eliminated. It's not pretty. We need to have the best people working for us and we all need to pull in the same direction or we will get run over by the tiny details. Carl, Jerry and DPA need to get behind the pilot group and become a asset. DPA needs to follow the Dogma they posted in one of their very first letters and work to unify not fracture the pilot group. In summary watch the work rules in the coming contract. Watch the grievance that is ongoing and let the company know your feelings. pay will not be the issue in the next contract. I have one goal and that is to stop the Delta pilots from being screwed again by a handful of insiders who think they know best. We deserve to be informed. Our leaders work for us. CDOs are a perfect example. You can pretend the process wasn't ignored on C2012, but that won't change the truth. We deserve the "historic" C2015.that our MEC promised. Anything less is a NO. Jerry |
Originally Posted by LowPhlyer
(Post 1823360)
Wow, Pretty interesting that someone that was on the call has such a poor recollection of what was actually said during the call! Lets see if you can recall that the conference call was considered "confidential" by the MEC and that the reps you say did not write about the call were not allowed to write about the call. The obfuscation about Negotiation Committee elections and special meetings is totally irrelevant! minor point! Do you recall how every person on the call had at least two chances to state their opinion and that many of them stated that the pilot surveys and inputs to them did not lean toward trading one type of compensation for another? Guess you don't recall that. Do you recall that toward the end of the call the majority stated that trading PS for "extra" percentages was NOT a good idea? Maybe not a consensus but a majority was against a trade. Guess not! Do you recall that multiple reps asked what the percentage increases would be looking like before accepting a trade? Do you remember the BS answer? The answer was (just 36 hours before the T/A was accepted) that pay rates had not been discussed yet! Did you get that...rates had not been discussed before the reps were asked by the NC and the MEC Chairman to consider a reduction in PS!!! Do you remember that the NC told the reps repeatedly during the negotiations that their mandate was to "lather, rinse, repeat" which was supposed to mean they they negotiate to what the reps had directed and if they needed to they would come back for re-direction? Where was the re-direction phase? Do you remember what our MEC Chairman stated during his "We've got a T/A" speech on Monday morning...to paraphrase: "we need not worry about what the pilots said in their surveys, we know better" (if you want an exact quote, it was in one of the Seattle reps updates). Sounds like Reroute has a problem memory IF he was actually on the call (or just a selective memory) LP I also have to chuckle at the special MEC meeting with regards to the "regularly scheduled negotiators election." Certainly one would have to remember the MEC Chairman himself saying "you are electing your section six negotiators" (since the election was close enough to the start of section 6)... Even loyal supporters of the admin expressed this same opinion until being counseled by the admin. Why an election? Because the admin did not get the committee they wanted the first time so they wanted a redo. Either way, LP's accounts of the conference call are spot on. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1823297)
Wow. The attack dogs are out in full force. Sleeper is jumping right in as one of the usual suspects with a new screen name. Reroute only shows up to do DALPA's dirty work. D. Mantooth...out of the woodwork, makes an unprovable claim that he "was on the call." Then he claims the "burden of proof" is on Carl. That's not the way it works.
You can't make this stuff up. No, I'm all new. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just calling it like I see it. If you, anyone else, or DPA feel attacked, it would be best to find a mirror and study it. I've lurked here for years, but as C2015 approaches I think we need all hands on deck to get behind our CBA. I'm no fan of ALPA politics or their many broken processes. That said, I don't want to see the negotiating process (you can't change horses in midstream) weakened or hijacked by a megalomaniac sitting in his kitchen in Tampa whose only goal in life is ruining ALPA and anyone who advocates for them. That effects me, my family, and my career negatively. I'm at the end of my career. There's a good chance this is my last contract. I want it to be HUGE. I have no problem with DPA per se. I have a problem with the guy who hides behind an LLC he created, never puts his name on anything, and wages jihad on the company, ALPA, and individual volunteers using OPM without any significant oversight at all. Sadly he IS DPA. The best statement we can all make is to vow allegiance to ALPA through C2015. If you want to change CBAs after you see the results, rock on. DPA is not and will never be the shining path to success. Don't be a boat anchor between now and C2015 by supporting their toxic means and methods. That doesn't mean you can't complain, it means you do so constructively. Praise in public. Complain in private. That's what a professional does. That's what give the MEC a stick. That's what shows a united front to RA. That's what gets us a great C2015. JMHO. |
Originally Posted by dtfl
(Post 1823353)
That's been happening in ATL. I got called in ref MLOA (and other productivity issues). Went in with an ALPA rep. My SLOA was 90% verified so that wasn't discussed (they tried we didnt) and my MLOA was on the up and up and is protected by federal law. The CP were professional-the FOMs...idiots. In the end I gave them some orders...nothing came of it and that was that. Well...that and I talked to the Dept of Labor.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands