Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

All those words don't change the premise tsquare. The premise is measuring performance. You don't want us to have that capability, and neither does DALPA. If we're never shown the opener or survey results, we don't have a clue of admins effectiveness.

I think you meant despise, and no I don't despise DALPA. DALPA is my only choice, thus my only choice is trying to improve DALPA...not destroy it.

You too.

Carl

The thing is though, with those results, you cannot accurately measure anything because as has been stated ad nauseum (not surprising that you don't get it) you have no clue.. as to the negotiations. You only see what the group wanted.. and what was obtained, and you make your value judgement based on your personal view as to it's overall success with your personal bias firmly in place. That does not remotely indicate the effectiveness of the negotiators as much as you think it does. And I call bullchit that you do not want to destroy dALPA. You constantly berate anything they ever do, you openly supported the doughnut holes and their continued divisiveness, and probably still do even though you sort of deny it here. I have never read one single thing you have written that praises anything done on your behalf from the MEC. Nothing. And frankly, I have had you on ignore for the better part of 6 months since I grew tired of reading your crapola. The only time I had to read any of it was when you got quoted. I read this latest nonsense after I called you out, so I had to read the response. So it's back to the dungeon with you. Ciao.

Flamer

08-31-2014 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716684)

I have never heard of anyone with access to the raw survey data or "crunched data" either before or after a TA. We get a very, very general statement from the union that our top issues are, for example, increased pay, no change to vacation, improved retirement, hold the line other benefits, etc. We also are told what the general unratifiable items are such as NO PBS at FedEx. I think we put out the unratifiable positions more because it was a communication data point for the "benefit" of the company.

We have many seniority, union pilots who are in management so any communication the union puts out to the pilots is delivered to the company too. For that reason alone, I don't ever see detailed openers or survey data being provided because it would infringe on the ability of us to negotiate freely. A poker game where one side must expose their cards isn't much of a game.

We receive contract comparison information generally when there is a TA. We benchmark off UPS and the major passenger airlines. So, yes, we are rooting you on in your contract negotiations!

Our pay, at the moment, compares very favorably to everyone. And, since you mentioned the "legacy" contract items, this is a major area where I think we're ahead of most other airlines (or Air Lines as I'm on your thread) as I don't think we work as much as most other carriers, which is an improvement in our QOL. For example, because we line bid, a week of vacation can kill an entire month's work.

FedEx tossed out PBS about half-way though this negotiation process. As you may suspect, this is a contract killer for virtually everyone as it would affect many, many sections of the contract and FedEx isn't transparent with their scheduling process and most of us don't trust them with the keys to PBS. If they stick to that position, we will never have an agreed upon TA. I've heard they wanted to give a 20% first year increase in pay to get this which I estimate would provide them with 30% more efficiency. They could reduce the pilot force by at least 15% which would stagnate everyone. The ripples from PBS for us would be unimaginable so it's a TA killer for everyone.

I know your vacation is great, thanks for posting it here. The contract comparison we received showed you have a high value in terms of hours, but failed to show it's total value since you line bid. That appeared deceitful to me amongst other items like that.

I wonder if we looked at another contract comparison provided by alpa to another alpa carrier if it would contain a different presentation of their same "statistics"? It always appears to me that the one we get is setting expectations and managing the vector.

Can you post a link to the comparison you received?

Carl Spackler

09-01-2014 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1716552)

I imagine the results don't vary much from contract survey to contract survey; more pay, more time off, etc etc.

Don't think that's true finis. Seems like there's always new dangers that change my priorities. For example, after our merger with you guys I didn't see the danger in European JV's and the need for punitive language for non-compliance. For C2015, I'll be prioritizing punitive language that automatically triggers since I don't trust that my union will file a grievance to defend the language. I think survey results would vary quite a bit from contract to contract. There's no reason not to release the results AFTER the contracted is voted in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1716552)

I think T said it best, do your due diligence on a TA and vote accordingly and accept the fact that majority rules and you might not be on that side of the fence. You also have to realize that most every voting pilot did their own due diligence and voted accordingly. The fact that they didn't vote the way you did doesn't make them any less than you or "sheep" or some other derogatory name.

This premise of yours gives a complete pass to the C2012 MEC admins finis and that's wrong. Some of our own yes voting reps did so because they felt the MEC admins put them in a no-win situation by signing a TA that had provisions specifically prohibited by the reps. They were worried greater harm might be done by forcing an angry and humiliated NC to go back to the table with management.

Nobody is disputing majority rules. I'm just saying we deserve metrics by which we can determine the effectiveness of union leadership and its internal processes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1716552)

The only reason to see a prior survey would be to cast dispersion on the elected NC and try to come up with a conspiracy theory or some tidbit to support your losing side on the TA, neither of which is good with contract 2015 gearing up.

I think you mean cast aspersions, and no that's not the only reason to see survey results. Even the "winning" side might like to measure effectiveness. I'll bet a significant portion of the C2012 "winning side" did so because it was the least bad of two very bad choices (the worst choice being forcing the NC to go back to the table). Those folks also deserve the ability to know what happened and measure effectiveness. It could very well change their vote rationale next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1716552)

Good luck on contract 2015, I hope it's such a slam dunk that it passes 75-25 which in itself would be historic.

Thanks man. It will very likely be my last one, so I'm very hopeful also.

Carl

Alan Shore

09-01-2014 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flamer (Post 1716896)

The contract comparison we received showed you have a high value in terms of hours, but failed to show it's total value...

What are you talking about? In the comparison we received at Delta, I see that FedEx tops out at 36 days of vacation. At 6:00 per day, this results in total vacation value of 216 hours.

What am I missing?

Carl Spackler

09-01-2014 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716641)

I'm a FedEx pilot and just enjoy browsing the forums--so I'm not trying to troll this.

Welcome. Great to have you here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716641)

But, I'm curious about this inability to view openers at Delta. At FedEx our contract openers are available for all the FedEx pilots to see. Since we are ALPA too, I don't think there is any policy against having contract opening positions published? After all, the company gets these openers so why shouldn't the pilots too? I don't understand why initial positions aren't available to the Delta pilots? Can anyone tell me why this is so?

I think you guys get similar to what we get now which is a very generalized "opener." It wasn't always that way. We used to get a detailed report of our opener shortly after it was exchanged with management. I remember once reading about our opener because management released it first in an attempt to shame us because of our outrageous demands. Fun times. :D

Last time, our negotiating committee and MEC administrators behaved very badly and were removed from their positions as a result. But only after they did the damage of signing a TA with management that included an item specifically prohibited by the reps. Being able to know our own survey results or detailed contract opener would allow us to mitigate some of these shenanigans, but as you can see we have some people that strongly fight any release of a detailed opening position or survey results...even after it's over. There's two sides to their argument. You can't see this stuff during negotiations because it's like showing your hand in poker (or some similar metaphor). And you don't need to see it afterwards because it's over now and you only want it to bash the union anyway.

Bottom line, we don't get to see our survey results. Ever. We don't get to see our opening position of negotiations. Ever.

Carl

Carl Spackler

09-01-2014 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716710)

That being said, I would think that I would expect only as much as the pilot group would be willing to demand--and I am not in a position to gauge that at Delta.

You're exactly right. The problem is that we're not able to gauge that either because our union refuses to release anything that shows us what the pilot group is demanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716710)

I would think if you've been loud and clear to your union, I would expect as much increase in benefits as you've told them you need--otherwise they couldn't get something ratified?

Last time was a pretty bad time regarding trust. Our reps specifically prohibited the negotiating committee from giving away any profit sharing. But the NC signed a TA that gave away part of our profit sharing. Many reps tell the story of an unapologetic NC spending a week in closed session with the reps arm twisting and threatening mass resignation unless the reps ratified the TA. In the end, the reps voted to ratify and the members voted 62% yes after a massive fear and sales campaign from the negotiating committee to vote this thing in or else you'll definitely not like management's plan B.

So that's how we get things ratified these days at Delta. It's one of the reasons half of Delta pilots signed a card at one time to remove ALPA and try a new union. Sadly, that effort is losing momentum now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716710)

Therefore, you either trust in the leadership you have elected or you don't.

That's sure the issue with us now. My position is that I shouldn't be asked to just trust the leadership that my reps elect. We should be able to see documents providing the measurable metrics that would instill trust. Our MEC patently refuses to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor (Post 1716710)

And, that's the crux of what I see in these Delta threads on APC: there at least two major "camps" or "parties" of pilots at Delta. Which is the larger "party" I don't know. And, I don't know if the Delta MEC leadership is a minority or majority "party" in power at the moment?

That nails it. It's very hard to know which is the majority party. I strongly suspect that the minority position is in power, but they get things ratified by scaring pilots who are risk averse by nature. I can't prove that however. Of course the other side claims the 62% yes vote is a ringing endorsement of the MEC, ALPA and the entire internal process further proving that pilots like me are the whiney minority who should be ignored.

Carl

Flamer

09-01-2014 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1716985)

Line bidding. So one week of vacation can knock out two trips and pay a lot more than 42 hours. SWA has same thing and they use a program called swaptimizer to maximize their value for a week of vacation. So, if you thought our vacation sucked based on others having 6 hours, you should see what it is actually valued at if you bid your line and vacation properly. It is eye watering. Our vacation is a joke.

Flamer

09-01-2014 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flamer (Post 1717050)

I know guys that get over 80 hours for a week of vacation. We get less than a third of that. I think that deserved at least a small font disclaimer when comparing our vacation to non-pbs airlines.

Carl Spackler

09-01-2014 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1716774)

As far as "divisions" go, I believe that there is always a noisy minority of the membership that will always vote against any TA; there's no pleasing some people...

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about MEC admin wrongdoing such as the signing of a TA that included an item specifically prohibited by the reps' direction. There's no "division" about that. It shouldn't have happened. The reps responded by throwing out the bad actors, but that doesn't solve the structural problem of no measurement capability of our MEC admins effectiveness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1716774)

We are in an an auspicious position to begin negotiations, and I hope that our outcomes exceed even our abundant potential.

Wouldn't that be great? But who defines that "potential?" It should be the members of course, but we don't get to see what we think as a group. Our MEC keeps that from us permanently. We don't even get to see what our negotiators actually demand initially...only the concepts. Our MEC keeps that from us permanently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1716774)

We can get to a better place contractually,

Now there's a lofty detailed goal that everyone can get behind! :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1716774)

but we can't afford to pretend that tinpot populism can stand in for strategy.

Nor can we afford another disrespectful dismissal of our elected reps and pretend that tinhorn dictatorship can replace bottom-up representation.

Carl

Carl Spackler

09-01-2014 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1716870)

I know you guys would just LOVE for me to drop it. And you can try to embarrass me or make fun of me for it, but I'm not going to let you shut me up. Yeah, it's a funny picture and it makes a funny point. But I think it speaks volumes about YOU that you want all this swept under the rug. Humor aside, that's your real message.

That is exactly right, and it's the exact tactic used on reps who don't allow important issues to be swept under the rug. People like slowplay, shiznit and alfaromeo were always there with the humorous and witty quip designed to embarrass the troublesome rep...as well as send the message to other reps. That can work for a while because it's human nature to want to fit in with your squadron mates. These three guys didn't know when to shut up however, and now they're off the gravy train...for the time being. But it's funny to see them practicing their "skills" here on the forum.

Such keyboard warriors these boys! :D

Carl

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Page 124 of 1030

124

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page