Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-07-2018 | 10:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Bar,
Were you in the room when the MEC discussed/said this? I'm referring to:
"The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC."
As I said, I'm a line pilot. Always have been, always will be. From a line pilots perspective, the MEC let them down. It should never have been approved and put to a vote. I don't care about the nuances or what was being said by whom (RA or the MEC in this case). I care about the bottom line. It's the MEC's job to make hard decisions like this, not to punt. If they didn't think it would pass, they should have voted it down period.
The fact that they didn't, tells me they passed the buck. End of story.
I get the impression you think we should thank United for their deal. The root cause of a better deal for us (TA-2) and a better deal for a lot of the industry, was because we voted down that POS. Not because of United. As you said United used our rejected deal as a springboard for theirs. If we wouldn't have rejected........would they have done as well as they did? I don't think so.
Denny
Were you in the room when the MEC discussed/said this? I'm referring to:
"The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC."
As I said, I'm a line pilot. Always have been, always will be. From a line pilots perspective, the MEC let them down. It should never have been approved and put to a vote. I don't care about the nuances or what was being said by whom (RA or the MEC in this case). I care about the bottom line. It's the MEC's job to make hard decisions like this, not to punt. If they didn't think it would pass, they should have voted it down period.
The fact that they didn't, tells me they passed the buck. End of story.
I get the impression you think we should thank United for their deal. The root cause of a better deal for us (TA-2) and a better deal for a lot of the industry, was because we voted down that POS. Not because of United. As you said United used our rejected deal as a springboard for theirs. If we wouldn't have rejected........would they have done as well as they did? I don't think so.
Denny
04-07-2018 | 11:04 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 53
That's some serious revisionist history. They sold the living crap out that POS wasting tons of our dues money while jumping up and down screaming PEB PEB... They spared no effort trying to cram it down our throats. Those in the majority on that MEC failed us!
04-07-2018 | 11:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 184
I believe around this same time the AirTran MEC voted NOT to send the initial SLI deal SW offered to the pilot group. SLI 2.0 was a worse deal and the AT MEC took a lot of heat over not letting the pilot group decide. Perhaps this episode weighed on the previous previous MEC. (not the single previous MEC, just to be clear which TA and MEC we are referring to)
04-07-2018 | 03:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
From: 5-9 block, kill removing
Denny,
Exactly, the last contract was sent out for ratification. The MEC itself voted it down 3 times (4 if the initial HECK NO counts). The MEC did not recommend it.
At the time the pilots were clamoring to see the thing. Richard Anderson said he was going to pull the deal off the table and offer less. Did the pilots deserve the right to see it before Richard Anderson's threat expired?
The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC.
Now, the MEC Admin believed Richard Anderson would make good on his threats and they DID push ratification.
The pilots did not make the distinction between the Reps and the Admin.
Richard Anderson broke constructive engagement because in his view it always worked out better for the pilots. In any event he did not want our costs higher than United & American.
Of course at the time who knew United would use our rejected TA to leapfrog us and since they did not have profit sharing (to speak of), profit sharing was not an issue. Richard left and we patterned off United who had patterned off of our non-existent rejected TA.
Who knew?
Worked out. A festivus miracle if ever I saw one.
Exactly, the last contract was sent out for ratification. The MEC itself voted it down 3 times (4 if the initial HECK NO counts). The MEC did not recommend it.
At the time the pilots were clamoring to see the thing. Richard Anderson said he was going to pull the deal off the table and offer less. Did the pilots deserve the right to see it before Richard Anderson's threat expired?
The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC.
Now, the MEC Admin believed Richard Anderson would make good on his threats and they DID push ratification.
The pilots did not make the distinction between the Reps and the Admin.
Richard Anderson broke constructive engagement because in his view it always worked out better for the pilots. In any event he did not want our costs higher than United & American.
Of course at the time who knew United would use our rejected TA to leapfrog us and since they did not have profit sharing (to speak of), profit sharing was not an issue. Richard left and we patterned off United who had patterned off of our non-existent rejected TA.
Who knew?
Worked out. A festivus miracle if ever I saw one.
Me- "Are you guys HOPING this gets voted down to send some sort of message, because to me, this is beyond NO, this is almost insulting."
Rep- "There is real value here, and if its not approved, the next offer will be of lesser value. I support it, and you should too."
It 'worked out' because of the line pilots. Your version of the MEC's motivation is much different than mine
04-07-2018 | 06:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 20
Not true, at least according to my rep at the time. I asked that specific question, albeit I was a bit leading.
Me- "Are you guys HOPING this gets voted down to send some sort of message, because to me, this is beyond NO, this is almost insulting."
Rep- "There is real value here, and if its not approved, the next offer will be of lesser value. I support it, and you should too."
It 'worked out' because of the line pilots. Your version of the MEC's motivation is much different than mine
Me- "Are you guys HOPING this gets voted down to send some sort of message, because to me, this is beyond NO, this is almost insulting."
Rep- "There is real value here, and if its not approved, the next offer will be of lesser value. I support it, and you should too."
It 'worked out' because of the line pilots. Your version of the MEC's motivation is much different than mine
04-08-2018 | 03:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 2
From: Capt
Not true, at least according to my rep at the time. I asked that specific question, albeit I was a bit leading.
Me- "Are you guys HOPING this gets voted down to send some sort of message, because to me, this is beyond NO, this is almost insulting."
Rep- "There is real value here, and if its not approved, the next offer will be of lesser value. I support it, and you should too."
It 'worked out' because of the line pilots. Your version of the MEC's motivation is much different than mine
Me- "Are you guys HOPING this gets voted down to send some sort of message, because to me, this is beyond NO, this is almost insulting."
Rep- "There is real value here, and if its not approved, the next offer will be of lesser value. I support it, and you should too."
It 'worked out' because of the line pilots. Your version of the MEC's motivation is much different than mine
04-09-2018 | 06:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
Sorry, but the reps are supposed to represent the collective interests of their pilot constituents. The whole premise of staging a haphazardly put together TA as a way to strengthen our bargaining position is comical at best and irresponsible at worst.
I believe the entire notion is a way for reps to distant themselves from a bad decision in an attempt to use implausible deniability to keep their offices.
The MEC and negotiators should have done a better job of conveying our pilot groups’ interests to the company.
I believe the entire notion is a way for reps to distant themselves from a bad decision in an attempt to use implausible deniability to keep their offices.
The MEC and negotiators should have done a better job of conveying our pilot groups’ interests to the company.
04-09-2018 | 06:28 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 458
Likes: 1
From: 320B
Calling in sick....
If you call in well mid rotation, you are not expected to return to the rest of the trip correct? Anything else to be aware of calling in well mid rotation?
If you call in well mid rotation, you are not expected to return to the rest of the trip correct? Anything else to be aware of calling in well mid rotation?
04-09-2018 | 06:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,561
Likes: 311
From: Sitting SC at the Five Towns
04-09-2018 | 06:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,199
Likes: 13
From: Petting Zoo
No they won't put you back on your rotation. If it's still in OT you could WS it. And make zero extra money as it will go back to refilling your sick bank.
So I'd question why you would call in well mid rotation and WS. GS on the other hand....though I think the new contract limited that?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
