Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-30-2011 | 03:58 AM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
I'll be back late tonight when I have more time, but I see nobody from the assembled forum wisdom has challenged this divisive, revisionist tripe.
The ENTIRE fNWA NC was in NYC for over a month working on the pre-merger announcement JCBA. Much of the fNWA committee structure (including Comm, R&I, and CA) was in NYC, eventually to be joined by the entire fNWA MEC. By late February a JCBA had been agreed to by the 3 parties, but there was no SLI, so no deal. Much of that same process was repeated in March, then the entire process was repeated again in June. Section 1 of the DAL PWA was substantially altered by the JCBA to include things like the fNWA Alaska code share, Compass, and the new agreement tightened permitted aircraft limits compared to the previous stand alone DAL and NWA contracts.
If I reversed the names above and said had the fNWA negotiators not given away CPZ we wouldn't have this problem, that the fDAL guys had no hand in crafting the language...how would that read? While the DAL PWA provided the framework for the JOINT CBA, the JCBA was a document that underwent at least 3 different sets of negotiations, was ratified by two separate MEC's and was voted on by 2 separate pilot groups.
That this forum allows this kind of stuff to stand unchallenged for 3 pages, yet wonders where's my response...
Sometimes you guys need to look in a mirror, imo.
The ENTIRE fNWA NC was in NYC for over a month working on the pre-merger announcement JCBA. Much of the fNWA committee structure (including Comm, R&I, and CA) was in NYC, eventually to be joined by the entire fNWA MEC. By late February a JCBA had been agreed to by the 3 parties, but there was no SLI, so no deal. Much of that same process was repeated in March, then the entire process was repeated again in June. Section 1 of the DAL PWA was substantially altered by the JCBA to include things like the fNWA Alaska code share, Compass, and the new agreement tightened permitted aircraft limits compared to the previous stand alone DAL and NWA contracts.
If I reversed the names above and said had the fNWA negotiators not given away CPZ we wouldn't have this problem, that the fDAL guys had no hand in crafting the language...how would that read? While the DAL PWA provided the framework for the JOINT CBA, the JCBA was a document that underwent at least 3 different sets of negotiations, was ratified by two separate MEC's and was voted on by 2 separate pilot groups.
That this forum allows this kind of stuff to stand unchallenged for 3 pages, yet wonders where's my response...
Sometimes you guys need to look in a mirror, imo.Slow, what you say is factually correct, it was not part of the deal, period. What guys are wondering, and have wondered on many items in the FNWA JCBA, is why where they not included. Why where they not looked at, or considered? Maybe they were, but I know I my experience when talking to the Reps involved in the process, many have stated that it was about getting the job done, and getting to an agreement. Maybe that is not the case, but it is not the perception out there.
I know at times, the responses that I have gotten from those involved on both sides of the merger, felt that some items "might" have been overlooked, not by design, just because of the circumstances, and the swiftness that the agreement was crafted.
*This is not just about the CPS stuff, but also other items in the contract. It is what it is, and looking in the rear view mirror does nothing, but the whole experience should be a good lesson.
08-30-2011 | 04:44 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Slow, what you say is factually correct, it was not part of the deal, period. What guys are wondering, and have wondered on many items in the FNWA JCBA, is why where they not included. Why where they not looked at, or considered? Maybe they were, but I know I my experience when talking to the Reps involved in the process, many have stated that it was about getting the job done, and getting to an agreement. Maybe that is not the case, but it is not the perception out there.
I know at times, the responses that I have gotten from those involved on both sides of the merger, felt that some items "might" have been overlooked, not by design, just because of the circumstances, and the swiftness that the agreement was crafted.
*This is not just about the CPS stuff, but also other items in the contract. It is what it is, and looking in the rear view mirror does nothing, but the whole experience should be a good lesson.
I know at times, the responses that I have gotten from those involved on both sides of the merger, felt that some items "might" have been overlooked, not by design, just because of the circumstances, and the swiftness that the agreement was crafted.
*This is not just about the CPS stuff, but also other items in the contract. It is what it is, and looking in the rear view mirror does nothing, but the whole experience should be a good lesson.
ACL;
I tend to agree with your assesment that some things got overlooked due to the swift pace and get the deal done.
I do not in any way buy into the superhuman negotiator theory, where all things were looked at, all leverage was applied and strategically we got the best deal...that is the tripe... IMO.
Without any behind the scenes facts to back it up, I do also believe the DAL MEC was complicit in the sale of Compass...actions speak louder than words. Bars post tieing political inertia to the small jet disunity is simply proven out by history.
08-30-2011 | 06:02 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
ACL, et. al.,
Slowplay wants to defend the MEC's actions (someone needs to and I'm glad he's here to communicate with).
The rest of you need to face the fact - Neither the NWA or the Delta MEC wanted Compass flying.
Hypocrisy is dangerous with the DPA turning every nonsensical statement and action from our MEC into a "conflict of interest" conspiracy theory.
As for how this whole thread started, Bill Swelbar went to lunch with Lee Moak and changed his opinion from "unions made errors by facilitating outsourcing" to "Continental pilots need to come to reality that outsourcing is an integral part of a modern airline."(*) When Bill Swelbar writes the same things I've heard with my own ears, I'm pretty sure where his new thinking came from.
P.S. Scambo, thanks for "getting it"
(*) my own paraphrasing
Slowplay wants to defend the MEC's actions (someone needs to and I'm glad he's here to communicate with).
The rest of you need to face the fact - Neither the NWA or the Delta MEC wanted Compass flying.
- NWA set it up without seniority numbers (knowing full well management does not keep employment promises)
- Bringing the Compass flying on board was not even a consideration by the Delta MEC
- Together the new joint MEC facilitated the sale of Compass. They did this without study of the economics. It was a political decision on the basis of the belief that Delta pilots do not fly small jets.
- The "South" side of the Delta MEC voted in acclimation against the "North" on the issue, revealing the first split of our MEC along pre merger lines.
- Master Chairman Lee Moak did not authorize his administration to study the economics of restoring Compass flying to our joint operation.
Hypocrisy is dangerous with the DPA turning every nonsensical statement and action from our MEC into a "conflict of interest" conspiracy theory.
As for how this whole thread started, Bill Swelbar went to lunch with Lee Moak and changed his opinion from "unions made errors by facilitating outsourcing" to "Continental pilots need to come to reality that outsourcing is an integral part of a modern airline."(*) When Bill Swelbar writes the same things I've heard with my own ears, I'm pretty sure where his new thinking came from.
P.S. Scambo, thanks for "getting it"
(*) my own paraphrasing
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 08-30-2011 at 06:16 AM.
08-30-2011 | 06:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Question for you Mac guy's. I just inherited a MacBook Pro from my wife that uses Safari. Ecrew works fine but Icrew does not display properly. A " Simple Accelerator" message distorts the display. Any help for an old computer illiterate.
08-30-2011 | 06:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
From: 737A
You'll need to use another browser. Firefox works fine with icrew. It's a free download.
08-30-2011 | 06:14 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Put the Apple on EBay. Use the proceeds to purchase a computer.
08-30-2011 | 06:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
Never mind. The past is the past.
Ferd <------letting it all go
Ferd <------letting it all go
Last edited by Ferd149; 08-30-2011 at 06:27 AM. Reason: Devisive rant serves nothing
08-30-2011 | 06:29 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
08-30-2011 | 06:30 AM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
08-30-2011 | 06:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
