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

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2568649)

It was a sell job. No way to obfuscate it or rewrite history.

exactly. the lengths they will go to in order to defend it knows no bounds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 2568627)

Yes, I was in the room.

Background:

the pilots wanted to see the deal
Richard Anderson was committed to pulling the deal off the table since revenues were declining and he thought the agreement was too much
The MEC had been votin the deal down and most every member trying to improve it. Dave Nestor made the most progress on sick verification issues because his own hospitalization provided an excellent objective example, sorta case study. Other Reps tried to leverage a % here or there. Anderson wasn't budging and replied to each attempted renegotiation with threats
the Negotiating Committee and the MEC Chairman (leader of the MEC Administration) believed Richard Anderson and thought the pilots would be better taking the deal and instantly launching into the AMJV and Contract 2018
Some of us were already a few pages into C2018
Polling data said the TA would pass (my opinion- the polling failed to ask the pilots about managements asks)

The MEC kept voting it down. ALPA Attorney Bob Salverson who is an older gentleman (now retired) who often acted as a Parliamentarian and was an expert on process made a presentation that stated exactly that - if you want to turn it down, fine. However, if you want to send a message with credibility - let the pilots see it & have the pilots turn it down.

The vote was to send the TA to the pilots without MEC recommendation. That is a matter of record and anyone who is interested should be able to get a copy of the resolution from our MEC Secretary.

One problem was that when the Admin and some Reps confronted the miscommunications (& outright lies) they were perceived as defending the TA when in reality they were just trying to ensure the pilots truly understood what the deal really was. I constantly got caught up in trying to explain 1 E. 9. and 1 P. 4. and being called a "liar" although quoting directly from the TA. In retrospect, the less said, the better. John Malone's Admin mostly remained off Social Media and was better for it.

History clearly indicates better was available by waiting. United did a +1 on our non existent rejected TA and we managed to +1 them while improving scope and leaving profit sharing alone. Some parts of the rejected TA were actually better than C15, but the retention of profit sharing more than made up for those changes.

- sorry about the edits, the battery in the keyboard is dead -

So my rep, who I assume was also in the room, directly refuted this when I asked him this exact question. Empirically, one of you is lying. Practically, I won’t believe either of you going forward. There’s just way too much documented evidence against your assertion. I’m sure you’re a nice guy, but you make it too hard to believe you. I’m guessing I’m not alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2568293)

Someone a while back said this was the case, but wondering if anyone has ops tested this scenario.

If you have an X day on the second to last day of the month(I.e. you have one on call day starting on the last day of the month), will Pbs make you be on call for the first 3 days (my cat is 4-99-4) regardless of what you bid?

In essence is it possible to “trick” the system into giving you a grouping of on call days less than your category demands for that month?

Thanks!

Requirements at the end of the month do not apply (i.e., a single day okay). But beginning of the month blocks are supposed to meet requirements in consideration of what you had at the end of previous bid month. So, if you had that lone reserve day on the last day of the previous month, you could be awarded the first 2 in the next bid period (narrow body, to make a full legal block), but not just one. If the last day of the previous month was an X day, PBS won't give you less than 3 touching the first day (NB).

And you need not make the previous lone day "whole", if your seniority allows you to make the first day(s) an X day(s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Han Solo (Post 2568320)

The system lets you break the rules at the beginning and end of the month. Only my anecdotal experience, no contract reference. I try to abuse those dates to make myself as unavailable to CS as possible.

The reference is the PBS Gouge, starting p. 152, where there is an entire chapter discussing the Reserve "Module" within the PBS Software. It *sort of* is contractual, in that the PBS software is what the company and ALPA have agreed is the source for creating our schedules. These rules were developed with the company's concurrence.

As for x days at the end of the month and a detailed explanation of the exceptions, that is all spelled out in pp. 155-156. John Bell's reserve line simulator spreadsheet has some notes that summarize the same things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go Cards go (Post 2568583)

I’ve done this. Single day at the end of the month. They showed me....short call!

I got them back for you. This month I had 3 days on, X day, 3 days on. They gave me a 3 day trip and then assigned 30 hours rest on my XX day, so I moved a day of RES from later in the month and put it where they'd already assigned rest :). It's the small victories...

What is this, the Mueller investigation? Fellow pilots worked incredibly hard on TA1. Rolling out a TA that is well received by 14,000 pilots is a thankless, difficult, stressful job. Reps were recalled. The TA was voted down.
Does slinging arrows like "sales job" and "liar" really solve anything or unify us? This is so over and 3 years ago.

Bar, thanks for your work and candor on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xray678 (Post 2566491)

Yes they run AEs first...I’m wondering what happens if there are no vacancies posted for 320a/73Na.....

They run AEs first but it can get complicated because of the exception in 22.E.1:

Exception: A standing bid preference for an AE will not be awarded if such award, together with any VD/MD(s) for the same category, would create a surplus that would cause a displacement in the category.

So it is possible that a senior pilot will not get an AE to a category while junior pilots are displaced into that category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planetrain (Post 2568934)

YGBSM. It's called refuting those who would reauthor history. TA1 was garbage, the MEC sold it like the proverbial golden egg laid by some magical goose. Don't get me wrong, it was definitely something that came out of the back end of a goose but it wasn't a golden egg.

Tell me this, how does white washing ALPA's disgraceful conduct during the sale of TA1 do anything to unite a pilot group that soundly turned down such drivel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planetrain (Post 2568934)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

That garbage TA should never be forgotten. Moakism is not a useful strategy in the current airline environment.

It was absolute a “sales job”. Thats not slinging mud, it’s a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 2569012)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

"condemned"? I remember a lot of good things in my past that I try to repeat as often as my wife is in the mood.

I remember a bad TA being voted down by our pilot group. I think you'd prefer to see that past event repeated under similar circumstances. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 2569012)

That garbage TA should never be forgotten.

Maybe a better thing to remember is that the pilots have the final say, and can be counted on to make the right call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 2569012)

It was absolute a “sales job”. Thats not slinging mud, it’s a fact.

It was clearly rejected. Also a fact.

The boundary between healthy skepticism and toxic cynicism depends upon your faith in our pilot group. Do you trust us?