Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

Here's the way you could answer the question of whether C2012 provided a net gain in value to Delta pilots Alfa: Post the costing sheets showing the costed gains in value and the costed value of our concessions. Then we can sum the totals of gains and concessions to arrive at a net value to Delta pilots.

Thank you.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1718458)

We all want more pay and more time off. The problem is the RLA process is stacked in favor of management. One of the interesting things is when we get new blood and reformers in the union they often end up with similar thoughts to the incumbent they ousted. The reason is with a reasonable intelligence level you get the same results from the same set of facts.
We are just starting the contract process. What we attempt to gain has to be a balance. The union will look at the contract surveys and gather input from lounge shows. They will then reach out politically and determine are support level in DC. They will get briefed by the NMB on their expectations and timelines. They will speak with professional negotiators and lawyers who specialize in labor. In the end they will try and craft a opener that will produce the best gains for the pilot group. Open outside of what the NMB feels is the zone of reasonableness and they will ice us. Open to low and we leave money on the table. American is a perfect example of opening for the moon and five years later have a pay increase of zero.
Management is not going to let their pilot costs get to far above the competition without a long drawn out fight. Even if the NMB feels we are being reasonable you are looking at 3 to 3.5 years before a release at the very earliest. If they don't feel you're within reason they will ice you indefinitely. The key to getting the most value for the pilot group is striking the right balance.
We can open for a 40% raise and work rules requiring 20% more pilots. It will look great on paper and we can all thump our chests at how tough we are. 5 years later the chest thumping will be getting painful and our gains will be zero. Balance is the key. Google NMB and reasonableness, interesting reading.

I get the reasons to be reasonable when negotioting but why all the propaganda to the members. If you listen to the ALPA guys contract 2012 was the best thing ever but in reality I am working a lot more and if you take into account inflation I am only making a slightly bit more. All the negatives I was told not to worry about have impacted my schedule. While I have never flown the full 15 hours on reserve above ALV, almost every month I am at least 5 over ALV and have been 11 once. 80 hours of guarantee is nice but I lose two X-days to get it and they fly me every on call day so where is the gain. With the old contract I could have Green Sliped and gotten the money and my days off back. I am on the 88 so maybe its better for some but a huge kick in the crotch for me.

I would just like to see ALPA acknowledge that some things are not as wonderful as they tell us. This should be ALPA's theme song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5n21zHPm8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1718475)

It is real analysis. Your problem is that the analysis is about a different subject. You and sailingfud do that a lot. You hope that color charts somehow gives you credibility. We're not discussing "pilots required." We're discussing whether C2012 provide a net gain in value to Delta pilots. Rather than the shell game you're attempting with the graph above, you have the ability to show the data that would answer the question. You were high up in the MEC administration during C2012 so you have this data. I'll have to put my request in the next post however or else you'll ignore it and insult everything in this post.

Carl

So Carl, do you also believe management is faking the pilot costs on the quarterly and annual reports?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1718414)

So it's your belief that Delta is forging the quarterly and annual reports showing pilot costs increasing each year at almost exactly the amounts predicted by DALPA?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Where did you get that idea?

My "belief" is the standard of living supported by our compensation throughout most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's needs to be restored. If that represents a net cost increase to Delta, then so be it. Management gets the big bucks to... well.... manage the business. When costs increase in one area, you've got to either accept the cost increase within the framework of remaining profitable, or you've got to make adjustments to other costs and/or revenue to keep the formula a profitable one. I'm not advocating that we should force Delta into losing money.

Restoration is doable, but it's going to require management to modify their business plan if they don't want a net cost increase. Right now, that is clearly not a priority to them because it doesn't need to be. DALPA has clearly established the idea and set the tone that the pilot group has no expectation of restoration. Why would management go to the trouble to adjust their business plan if they don't have to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1718375)

Then you should just admit that your post is just your typical turd throwing. "Cost neutral" has become some kind of flag you and Carl like to wave that means nothing and is just a way to try and get the high emotion/low information people to buy into your propaganda. Too bad, because I think you are a smart guy yet you hold onto that idiotic tactic.

And what is "game over"?

It's not our words tsquare. It's the exact words used by management to describe C2012. Cost Neutral.

When you describe our use of management's exact words as "turd throwing", it shows why I describe you as a surrenderer interested most in keeping your LCA lanyard.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1718476)

Is a contract survey, and multiple emails requesting that our membership participate a "shut up and color" attitude? Is a Rotation Construction survey? How about lounge visits? Webinars?

Well it wouldn't be.... except that in the end they ignore most of this input and do whatever they deem best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1718415)

I disagree. Example. If Carl takes a 20% pay cut and I get a 30% pay increase, that's (for sake of example) cost neutral. Great for me, and sucks for Carl. I don't care about Carl. Sorry, but I don't anymore than you care about me. Now apply that process to the rest of the company. IF we make more and they don't... sucks to be them. Not my problem. Cost neutral. Your waving an agenda building flag that has nothing to do with our issues.

I'm not waving "an agenda building flag." :rolleyes: I'm simply stating fact and my honest interpretation of the facts.

See my post to sailingfun. That pretty much addresses what you said above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1718488)

I'm thinking T has imbibed in a little too much of the LCA Koolaid. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1718489)

Well it wouldn't be.... except that in the end they ignore most of this input and do whatever they deem best.

Your proof of this is where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1718488)

Kind of like that capacity neutral 737-900ER order? After all, the mainline fleet isn't growing as a result of that ord....oh wait.