Yeah I was assuming we were talking about the opening position with a mediator present. I guess if we just meet with the company we will propose a billion dollars an hour and 29 days a month off (including February leap year or not) and they will propose minimum wage, DCI gets anything under 200 seats and anything over 210 seats and we buy our own hotels on overnights.

I think we all know we aren't going to reach an agreement outside of mediation so our true "openers" are just mental, um, facilitation.

 

Sailing,

This is a disturbing post. If this is the reality of the situation, why even bother with surveys, openers, or negotiations at all? If this is how it is, it seems we are lucky just to even have the company talk to us. You make it seem like we have to beg the company to have discussions and if we ask for too much, they will take that privilege away. Really? How do you know? I thought this was a new Delta management team.

Look. I like Delta. I want Delta to succeed. I want Delta to make a lot of money. I want Delta to be the airline of choice for every passenger in the world. I think, because we are all proud individuals, we all want to work for the best airline in the world.

But, come on -- It has got to be a two way street. Delta has got to want its pilots to succeed. Not, just at getting airplanes from point A to B, but outside of work, too. They have got to know that employing some of the most conscientious, professional, type A, results oriented, pilots in the industry should and does come at a cost. They have got to know that the more pilots they have that have side businesses and second careers, and aspirations to work somewhere else, only hurts them. They have got to know that to get to be the airline of choice for every passenger in the world, they have got to be the airline of choice for every pilot in the world. Especially, since they rely so heavily on pilots to make the operation go.

The suggestion that if we merely ask for "the huge opener" it will result in the company walking away from negotiations for 14 months, indicates that you think the company doesn't respect us -- that you think the company will choose to punish us in this way as if we are a bunch of 3 year olds. It even suggests that you believe the company will behave in a childish fashion and take their ball and go home, if they don't like what they hear, which I don't believe. But, if this is the case, let the opener at least reveal that we are self-respecting adults. If the company wants to play games, we will at least know what we are dealing with from the beginning, instead of the end.

Seriously, in my opinion, I would think the company would have less respect for us if we don't ask for the huge opener. What type of person doesn't ask to be paid the same as his highest peer is paid? What type of person is threatened or intimidated to even ask?

To be honest with you, I don't think the opener has anything to do with being happy or unhappy. I don't even think it as to do with what the rational or irrational pilot thinks, either. This opener has everything to do with respect.

I think we should respect ourselves enough to ask for what we want -- for what we see our highest peers making, plus some-- then have the confidence that the company will respect us enough to go from there.



New K Now
(Sorry for the length.)

 

Let's see...

Home Study
Management Bonuses
Virginia Avenue Hotels
Outsourcing
Bankruptcy Pay
Bankruptcy Benefits
Bankruptcy Work Rules
ALPA?

Shirly we can add to the list of what we could give up to help the cause...

 

EXCELLENT POST newKnow!

 

Alright you super fantastic sexy scope gurus.

I am stuck on question 13 "the list" please break down how you numbered and why PLEASE!

Here is the list and it is not in a priority order, just as it was listed in the survey

Amount of flying done by DCI carriers (e.g. Compass, Comair, etc.)

Successorship/Merger with another carrier

Fragmentation/Transfer of Assets

Change of Control

Cabotage

Alter Ego

Subcontracting

Bankruptcy 1113 Protection

Foreign Ownership

 

Had a hard time with this one too. Seems like any one of those ranked options could cost pilot jobs/shrinking of the mainline product. I guess we need to decide which one of the above options would most likely become a threat in the future, but not sure I have any idea.

 

Great post, NewK!!! I've been saying this for a long time. "Proactive engagement" is the way things are supposed to work. But it must be based on a mutually respectful relationship! I don't see keeping us at bankruptcy/emergency pay levels and continuing to outsource our jobs as a demonstration of respect. In fact, I believe it demonstrates quite the opposite. I want people representing me who are not so enamored with this new way of doing things (proactive engagement) that they cannot see when it is not working and/or not appropriate. As I see it, we've never really tested it. In fact, it seems that DALPA goes out of their way to make sure it never gets tested.

To tie in with another post about the "what are you willing to give up to get that" mentality at DALPA. I saw a clear example of that earlier this year when I had a lengthy email exchange with the ATL LEC Chairman. We were discussing the idea of approaching the company for a mid-contract partial pay restoration to bring us to W2 parity with SWA. He didn't like the idea of doing that because he said that getting SWA pay would mean the company would require us to concede SWA productivity... and that would result in a large number of furloughs and backwards movement throughout the company. It was a clear example of a "what are you willing to give up to get that" mentality. I have seen nothing to date that makes me think this kind of thing is not the predominant thinking in our MEC. Sailingfun, who seems to be in lock step with the MEC on just about everything, has provided us yet another example. Very disappointing.

 

nwaf16dude,

Thanks, I didn't think anything changed but you never know.

 

Yeah talk about a Sophie's choice.

I was going to put subcontracting as number 1, because it is so general. But I didn't like leaving DCI anywhere but number 1. DCI is subcontracting, and it is, by far, our largest and most dammaging subcontracting. 40-50% of our block hours and a similar percentage of our pilot jobs.

Alter Ego is a holding company scope issue and we already have that, with only DCI being the outstanding issue to be resolved.

Bankruptcy protection is sort of a nebulous construct because you can't really ever have that, especially us as labor. I ranked that low only because why waste point weighting on something that would likely be thrown out in, well, bankrputcy?

Foreign Ownership and Cabotage are huge threats. But that must be handled at the legislative level and has little to do with our contract.

Successorship, Merger, Fragmentation and Change of Control are also important, but we already have about as much protection in those areas that any contract, especially any ALPA contract, can provide given the era of relative arbitration and the federal merger law.

So that's why IMO DCI is by far the biggest issue that is causing the most dammage that is most within our control. Its the issue that we can do the most about in C2012. Its the issue that our current book drops the ball on the most and that our next book can make the most progress on.

A close second would be the AK code share abuse, but there are at lease some supposed revenue sharing restrictions. Not so with DCI, where we get 100% of the revenue after paying 105-110 or so percent of the costs. And DCI is WAY, WAY, WAY bigger an outsourcing and a downward force cancer than AK.

YMMV.

 

Where's the LIKE button on this website?