Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-11-2011 | 05:42 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
The only way you will see either sides position is if the other side starts negotiating in public.
08-11-2011 | 06:06 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Evidently, "Call the Duty Pilot" is not an appropriate response on any of the CQ questions, much less all of them.
08-11-2011 | 06:11 AM
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
.
15% up front the first year, and the 3 additional % per year for the next 4 years? I was told by an LEC member up North to expect ONLY 15% TOTAL. Some of them think that's all we can expect, or all THEY expect. Fill out that DPA card to help add a bit of pressure to our union, and make sure they negotiate for us, and not just manage our expectations.
15% up front the first year, and the 3 additional % per year for the next 4 years? I was told by an LEC member up North to expect ONLY 15% TOTAL. Some of them think that's all we can expect, or all THEY expect. Fill out that DPA card to help add a bit of pressure to our union, and make sure they negotiate for us, and not just manage our expectations.
Bill,
I agree and that is why I sent my DPA card in months ago. I would like to see a discussion with DALPA and the DPA and have DALPA make its case.
I think the DALPA guys are very smart and work very, very hard for our cause but, I think ALPA as a whole has become a full blown bureaucracy with all the associated baggage.
Some stuff that DALPA does is very good - some I just don't understand. For example - this whole negotiating committee vote issue. Well if the bylaws require the committee to be appointed XX months before section six then why did we select them last year? And if continuity is critical for DALPA then why select the negotiating committee XX months prior to section six?
Most likely there are very legitimate reasons for this (I am not a conspiracy guy) but DALPA has lost a lot of credibility with the rank and file, and so a lot of guys don't believe what they are told. This is understandable, I was told Lee Moak has no aspirations for ALPA National. I was told 70 seats was a line in the sand. Etc, etc.
Scoop
08-11-2011 | 06:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,629
Likes: 15
From: blueJet
08-11-2011 | 06:47 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
From: Driving to work & Looking Left @ the Surf!!
Thank you for the wake up photo...made me completely forget about the Sec 6 opener nonsense...
Baja.
08-11-2011 | 07:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
Gloopy,
I basically agree with everything you say but "demanding" is not really a strategy. I will play devils advocate here:
DALPA passionately argues 1-7 above.
The company says we can only give you 15% up front and 3% per year for 4 years.
DALPA says but we "demand" more. See 1-7 above.
The company repeats, we can only give you 15% up front and 3% per year for 4 years.
RLA kicks in and the years roll by.
I repeat - I don't disagree with your reasoning - but we need more of a strategy than "demanding." I understand that you probably would not want to publicly lay out a proposed strategy on a public forum (Sun Tzu would not approve) but we all need to start about thinking about it.
Scoop
I basically agree with everything you say but "demanding" is not really a strategy. I will play devils advocate here:
DALPA passionately argues 1-7 above.
The company says we can only give you 15% up front and 3% per year for 4 years.
DALPA says but we "demand" more. See 1-7 above.
The company repeats, we can only give you 15% up front and 3% per year for 4 years.
RLA kicks in and the years roll by.
I repeat - I don't disagree with your reasoning - but we need more of a strategy than "demanding." I understand that you probably would not want to publicly lay out a proposed strategy on a public forum (Sun Tzu would not approve) but we all need to start about thinking about it.
Scoop
As for "simply demanding" all I'm referring to is how we frame the debate. If we can't afford/NMB won't allow/union conspiracy sinks/etc. SWA parity and a true COLA plus reasonable premiums for the other things mentioned, then all I'm asking is that we call it like it is.
A 10% raise on day one with 5% raises for 5 years is NOT a "raise", it is a pay cut below SWA, and close to a net inflationary pay cut anyway over time. If, as you suggest, all we can afford and/or manage to get for whatever reason, is something like that, then we need to at least call it yet another extension of a 9-11/bankrputcy/emergency contract that reduces proven and profitable SWA pilot pay and locks us into the new extention for the better part of another decade.
If indeed the 10/5/5/5/5 nonsense is really "all we can get" then it needs to be referred to not as a "30% raise" but rather a "5% increase over 9-11/bankruptcy/emergency wages but 30% or so below the biggest domestic LCC with partial cost of living adjustments that at best will break even each year and at worst will eliminate the initial 5% raise and we will wind up with a net pay cut over the life of the agreement".
So in either case, windfall contract of our dreams, or yet another concessionary POS shoved down our throats by incompetent management, hoodwinked union leadership and/or government corruption and influence...either way...if we end up with less than SWA parity, including scope reversal to some significant degree, and including a full COLA over the life of the agreement, we have taken a pay cut. The least we can do is to not celebrate it and paint it as a fake "raise".
That said, I think that framing the debate in the correct way will go a long way in helping us get the best possible contract, whatever that ends up being.
And we need to really be cognizant of what inflation does to our money and how reverse compounding works. The "rule of 72" works both ways. Simple concept I know, but its sickening how quick we can collectively be to ignore that basic fact.
08-11-2011 | 07:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Oddly, you chose not to mention him hopping on the "rumor express" either, WHICH IS WHAT THE REFERENCED POSTS WERE DISCUSSING!!!
Grow up.
I'll be more than happy to oblige your question: No. I do not know for fact that the LEC 20 FPL resolution has been acted upon. I'm not a member of LEC 20. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since you are a member of LEC 20 and you are asking me*, that you do not see the results of the LEC 20 FPL resolution status. Hey, I hope your LEC's resolution gets a big thumbs up and everyone gets to see the data. I have issues with guys who intentionally abuse the system. I don't have issues with guys who work 20-22 days a month and make a little bit more than "average pilot", (get rid of the seagulls though). I want the best people to WANT to do the job, and sometimes you gotta pay a little bit more to get the best.
What I do know is that there is a Fastread that just published the upcoming MEC meeting topics and the Compensation Review Committee is presenting its recommendations to the MEC. We'll know the results of that after the MEC meeting. Keep your powder dry until its time to use it Carl.
*someone you believe to be an ALPA cheerleader...(those that know me know that I have some real problems with ALPA in present form, hence my decision to get involved to try and affect changes).
08-11-2011 | 07:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Bravo! Well stated Gloopy.
It is my hope that this resonates with every pilot at Delta Air Lines!
It is my hope that this resonates with every pilot at Delta Air Lines!
I bet they will open with a paycut disguised as a raise. Something like "increases of up to 40%" which of course will only be 5ish% per year partial cost of living adjustments, a few minor improvements here and there, and a few net concessionary things here and there. They will then count on the media, watercooler talk among other employee groups and even pilot apologists to parrot the "40% raise" lie. This is basic freshman airline management 101 straight from their oldest playbook. As a bonus, doesn't RA does work with one of the federal reserve branches/board of governers? Either way, he knows very well how inflationatory policy is used as a hidden tax to siphon wealth away from those who earn it, retroactively and across the board.
This goes so far beyond "restoration" as a general concept or "back in my day you could buy a Cadillac with a month's pay" or whatever. Forget high water marks of a different era and let's take all the emotion like that out of it and focus on what we know to be reasonably true, right here, right now.
Is it absolutely essential that we:
1. take note of the full and complete increase in cost of living, which is far in excess of the bogus "official" CPI numbers which exclude food and energy, which are, by far, the biggest inflationary cost pressures to most of us when it comes to how much to look for in a COLA, therefore we MUST:
2. back that number OUT of any claim of a "raise" over the life of the agreement AND:
3. Demand instant SWA per pilot small narrowbody W-2 parity, plus a premium for our massive additional revenue and higher per pilot revenue, plus a premium for our massive scope relief for flat out whole product outsourcing, plus a premium for our massive code share partnership relief, plus a premium for widebody flying above all that in proportion.
4. Back out every penny at or below SWA per pilot W-2 from being in the same room as the word "raise" or "increase" especially "over the life of" nonsense. If it takes 35% to get SWA parity and on day one we get 40%, we got a 5% raise. If we get 5% per year for 5 years, that is, at best, a zero percent raise, as the trillions we are printing out of thin air, including compounded interest costs which are also being printed out of thin air, will at least equal that (and likely more). But we have to start with a number at some point, so a negative 5% erosion, compounder per year, at a minimum, should statistically be backed out of any and all "raise" claims in additon to backing out 100% of every penny it takes to just equal SWA.
5. Only discuss money in excess of SWA AND in excess of a coumpounded 5% per year as a "raise" both initially and over the live of C12K.
6. In the event that a company or union agreed upon offer, TA, proposal or even opener is less than above, it shall be referred to appropriately as a pay cut.
7. ALPA's esteemed EF&A needs to drastically recalculate its epic fail method of calculating/rationalizing positive "bargaining credits" for outsourcing to its proper metric, which is clearly a substantial negative wage and benefit pressure on a per pilot basis, which is the entire reason for outsourcing the core business of an airline to begin with when you give them relief in section one: to give management relief from sections 2 through infinity, which not only prevents jobs at YOUR airline/pilot group, but produces long lasting negative wage, benefit, retirement and work rule pressure at every level.
The hoodwinking is over for C12K. Partial COLA's are not raises. Partial restoration is not a raise. SWA parity is not a raise. SWA pay, SWA scope, premiums for widebody, premiums for our massive network/first class/travel infrastructure, SWA work rules at a minimum for narrowbody domestic (plus inprovement for reasons already mentioned) and once all of that is taken care of, then and only then can the "me too" nonsense even be allowed into the discussion. If the company says that is too expensive, the debate should automatically shift to the issue of management competency.
1. SWA pay
2. SWA scope
3. SWA profitability sure beats
1. outsource/shrink
2. ?
3. profits.
This goes so far beyond "restoration" as a general concept or "back in my day you could buy a Cadillac with a month's pay" or whatever. Forget high water marks of a different era and let's take all the emotion like that out of it and focus on what we know to be reasonably true, right here, right now.
Is it absolutely essential that we:
1. take note of the full and complete increase in cost of living, which is far in excess of the bogus "official" CPI numbers which exclude food and energy, which are, by far, the biggest inflationary cost pressures to most of us when it comes to how much to look for in a COLA, therefore we MUST:
2. back that number OUT of any claim of a "raise" over the life of the agreement AND:
3. Demand instant SWA per pilot small narrowbody W-2 parity, plus a premium for our massive additional revenue and higher per pilot revenue, plus a premium for our massive scope relief for flat out whole product outsourcing, plus a premium for our massive code share partnership relief, plus a premium for widebody flying above all that in proportion.
4. Back out every penny at or below SWA per pilot W-2 from being in the same room as the word "raise" or "increase" especially "over the life of" nonsense. If it takes 35% to get SWA parity and on day one we get 40%, we got a 5% raise. If we get 5% per year for 5 years, that is, at best, a zero percent raise, as the trillions we are printing out of thin air, including compounded interest costs which are also being printed out of thin air, will at least equal that (and likely more). But we have to start with a number at some point, so a negative 5% erosion, compounder per year, at a minimum, should statistically be backed out of any and all "raise" claims in additon to backing out 100% of every penny it takes to just equal SWA.
5. Only discuss money in excess of SWA AND in excess of a coumpounded 5% per year as a "raise" both initially and over the live of C12K.
6. In the event that a company or union agreed upon offer, TA, proposal or even opener is less than above, it shall be referred to appropriately as a pay cut.
7. ALPA's esteemed EF&A needs to drastically recalculate its epic fail method of calculating/rationalizing positive "bargaining credits" for outsourcing to its proper metric, which is clearly a substantial negative wage and benefit pressure on a per pilot basis, which is the entire reason for outsourcing the core business of an airline to begin with when you give them relief in section one: to give management relief from sections 2 through infinity, which not only prevents jobs at YOUR airline/pilot group, but produces long lasting negative wage, benefit, retirement and work rule pressure at every level.
The hoodwinking is over for C12K. Partial COLA's are not raises. Partial restoration is not a raise. SWA parity is not a raise. SWA pay, SWA scope, premiums for widebody, premiums for our massive network/first class/travel infrastructure, SWA work rules at a minimum for narrowbody domestic (plus inprovement for reasons already mentioned) and once all of that is taken care of, then and only then can the "me too" nonsense even be allowed into the discussion. If the company says that is too expensive, the debate should automatically shift to the issue of management competency.
1. SWA pay
2. SWA scope
3. SWA profitability sure beats
1. outsource/shrink
2. ?
3. profits.
08-11-2011 | 09:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
08-11-2011 | 10:02 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
