Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-10-2018 | 10:37 PM
Banned
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
From: systems analyst
Anyone have any gouge on non revving out of FCO (Rome). My ID travel is pretty basic.
Specifically do they upgrade based on who gets there first and not our traditional way, and do S2s do nothing for upgrades.
Thanks!
Specifically do they upgrade based on who gets there first and not our traditional way, and do S2s do nothing for upgrades.
Thanks!
04-11-2018 | 01:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Un-freaking-believable.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
And it is a nice deflection to say we have no faith in our pilot group. I have plenty of faith in the pilot group, just as I have plenty of faith in the American people. Sweving across lanes here, but too often the responsibility of representation leads to illusions of grandeur or sets in motion personal agendas. Too often the proverbial onion must be peeled back very far to learn one’s true intent, but it is far easier to see evidence of rot before actually finding it.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
And it is a nice deflection to say we have no faith in our pilot group. I have plenty of faith in the pilot group, just as I have plenty of faith in the American people. Sweving across lanes here, but too often the responsibility of representation leads to illusions of grandeur or sets in motion personal agendas. Too often the proverbial onion must be peeled back very far to learn one’s true intent, but it is far easier to see evidence of rot before actually finding it.
04-11-2018 | 04:05 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 5
From: Captain
Yes, I was in the room.
Background:
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 -
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 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 -
04-11-2018 | 05:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
From: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Easier to look the thread over than reiterate all I learned there.
04-11-2018 | 05:40 AM
Bye Bye Maddog!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: Movin' On UP........
True, but as long as the discussion stays civil it is providing a lot of information and many Pilots can learn a thing or two by following along.
Some may say it is providing more disinformation than information and I will admit that most threads include opinions and disinformation posted as facts. Each reader can digest what they read and decide what is credible and what is not.
If curious or skeptical (skepticism is good) Forum members can conduct further research and come up with their own opinions.
Scoop
Some may say it is providing more disinformation than information and I will admit that most threads include opinions and disinformation posted as facts. Each reader can digest what they read and decide what is credible and what is not.
If curious or skeptical (skepticism is good) Forum members can conduct further research and come up with their own opinions.
Scoop
AR-15's with tons of ammo! Bring on the zombies!
04-11-2018 | 06:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 46
So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Un-freaking-believable.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
Last edited by Buck Rogers; 04-11-2018 at 06:47 AM.
04-11-2018 | 08:05 AM
Banned
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
From: systems analyst
I recently did FCO with the family, the thread is here: Nonrev tips for Alitalia?
Easier to look the thread over than reiterate all I learned there.
Easier to look the thread over than reiterate all I learned there.
04-11-2018 | 08:43 AM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions
If you want verification click watch the youtube video of our MEC Chariman yelling at our Pilots at what would happen if we voted down the TA.
There is plenty of irrefutable verifiable evidence out there but most guys myself included did not feel the need to document it as it was happening.
My buddy was in the P2P program and when it became known that he was against the TA he was no longer scheduled for any more lounge visits.
You say:
If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin).
Hell, no one can say that it was 100% hard sell I am sure some DALPA guys were against it but ask yourself a few questions:
If the union reps were not "selling it" why were many recalled from office by a Pilot group that rejected the TA? If the reps were neutral why would the Pilot group recall them?
Does our MEC Chairman seem neutral in his famous youtube clip?
There is tons of other irrefutable proof but my advice to you is just ask the Pilots who were around during the TA because ultimately the perception of a "sales job" is subjective. If you ask me I say total sales job.
But the funny thing out of this whole debacle is that we as a group fell into a pile of crap and came out smelling like a rose. Mostly due to good luck (after a decade of bad luck) and a critically thinking Pilot group, TA-1 fortuitously turned out to produce a very positive result - just not in the way DALPA envisioned.
Scoop
04-11-2018 | 09:32 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions
As I read through the thread's rehashing of the last contract cycle, the first question that came to mind was "why is Bar bringing all of this to light right now?" Followed by, "why didn't the MEC send out an official comms piece outlining what Bar is alleging? Did Bar come on APC and craft a similar post immediately after TA1 was sent out or rejected?" If he did, I don't remember it.
There are a few things in Bar's post that are hard to take as factual. I think in one of his posts he says pilots were "clamoring" to see the deal. Really? By "pilots" does he mean a handful that might have called and said show me the deal? I'd bet just as many pilots said don't send out the deal if all the rumors are true (most of the rumored details ended up true).
Something else about Bar's post history makes me wonder what his motivation is. In another thread he states that most pilots are morons. Interesting. This coming from a guy that has been deeply entrenched in DALPA work.
To be clear, the agenda isn't DALPA- BAD. The current crop of guys seem to get it, particularly wrt Scope and calling out the company on PWA violations. What is and was bad, is the group that led us into TA1. Since you like facts, I think there are some hard facts that support that assertion.
04-11-2018 | 10:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 46
What I find truly funny is people trying to explain everything like there is a simple answer and only one perspective.
You tout recalls as if that is justification for something. So if I have it correctly, the whole of ATL LEC was recalled and the hard liners put in place. After TA2 there was a rift between the CA reps and the FO reps....I don't understand that since they were put into office for ostensibly the same reason...my how fickle times can be and how quickly views change.....or better yet maybe you can explain to me...
How in hell can Malone who was brought in to fix the debacle of TA1 and did so by bringing in arguably the best contract ever(at least by voting standards and would probably be even better today) got ousted? Can you spell FICKLE? It is truly human nature....grass is always greener
That is unfrikking believable...I attribute it to no matter how good things are, there are people who want the power and they throw out platitudes and "what if's" and armchair quarterback and use the perfect knowledge of history to point out "shoulda, woulda, coulda's. Some of the gullible eat it up.
So now..
The new "tough regime change" brings in virtual bases? If any of the old guard had done this I can only imagine the hew and cry. Plenty of people with opinions about VB but no spear chukking at the "leaders " that let it come to fruition, but plenty of **** and vinegar about the VB in general. Isn't that what you all are clamoring for ? The MEC should "protect "us, isn't that the argument..
So the old guard let us decide on TA1 and the the new "hard liners" do what? Oh, they let us decide on VB. Shouldn't they have just shut it down like you are suggesting about TA1? So what is it, can't have it both ways....unless it is all politics?
I don't know any of the players here but it seems pretty apparent that some of the "chit chat" crowd is here and alive and well....there is no middle ground, only "my way or the highway"
You all carry on...I'll resume my lurking
Cheers
You tout recalls as if that is justification for something. So if I have it correctly, the whole of ATL LEC was recalled and the hard liners put in place. After TA2 there was a rift between the CA reps and the FO reps....I don't understand that since they were put into office for ostensibly the same reason...my how fickle times can be and how quickly views change.....or better yet maybe you can explain to me...
How in hell can Malone who was brought in to fix the debacle of TA1 and did so by bringing in arguably the best contract ever(at least by voting standards and would probably be even better today) got ousted? Can you spell FICKLE? It is truly human nature....grass is always greener
That is unfrikking believable...I attribute it to no matter how good things are, there are people who want the power and they throw out platitudes and "what if's" and armchair quarterback and use the perfect knowledge of history to point out "shoulda, woulda, coulda's. Some of the gullible eat it up.
So now..
The new "tough regime change" brings in virtual bases? If any of the old guard had done this I can only imagine the hew and cry. Plenty of people with opinions about VB but no spear chukking at the "leaders " that let it come to fruition, but plenty of **** and vinegar about the VB in general. Isn't that what you all are clamoring for ? The MEC should "protect "us, isn't that the argument..
So the old guard let us decide on TA1 and the the new "hard liners" do what? Oh, they let us decide on VB. Shouldn't they have just shut it down like you are suggesting about TA1? So what is it, can't have it both ways....unless it is all politics?
I don't know any of the players here but it seems pretty apparent that some of the "chit chat" crowd is here and alive and well....there is no middle ground, only "my way or the highway"
You all carry on...I'll resume my lurking
Cheers
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
