Details on Delta TA
#131
I have no idea. I wasn't defending JM. I was just giving the other part of the story you conveniently left out.
#132
Off the top of my head, I can't recall you ever agreeing with me. So when you try to counsel me on how I might be losing people, I don't think you have an accurate picture of who I've won or lost.
If there was any real negotiations, it couldn't have been much. The time was so short and threats by management were so many.
It was not the MEC's belief. It was the NC's belief and that of certain MEC administrators, but not the MEC. Our MEC was put in a no-win situation by the NC and certain administrators.
How about you? Might you have wanted more?
If that was true, those negotiators would still be here along with those administrators. They're all gone now and they're gone as a result of their actions. They don't get to decide whether there's a calculated chance of a greater outcome by pushing for more. The MEC gets to make that decision. That didn't happen. The NC signed the TA when they knew it specifically did not meet the pilot's survey and gave up profit sharing which the MEC prohibited them from doing.
I don't view them as miscreants either.
My opinion is the opposite. Others agree with me...that's why those folks are no longer serving.
You seem to be lamenting legitimate debate on this forum. Why?
Carl
If there was any real negotiations, it couldn't have been much. The time was so short and threats by management were so many.
It was not the MEC's belief. It was the NC's belief and that of certain MEC administrators, but not the MEC. Our MEC was put in a no-win situation by the NC and certain administrators.
How about you? Might you have wanted more?
If that was true, those negotiators would still be here along with those administrators. They're all gone now and they're gone as a result of their actions. They don't get to decide whether there's a calculated chance of a greater outcome by pushing for more. The MEC gets to make that decision. That didn't happen. The NC signed the TA when they knew it specifically did not meet the pilot's survey and gave up profit sharing which the MEC prohibited them from doing.
I don't view them as miscreants either.
My opinion is the opposite. Others agree with me...that's why those folks are no longer serving.
You seem to be lamenting legitimate debate on this forum. Why?
Carl
I'm not about to counsel anyone, particularly you. There have been times where I absolutely agreed with what you posted, but since I have not posted such, I understand why you would think that I never agree with you. I do at times. Cats and dogs.
I did want more. I always do. I'm a pilot. I want it all. : ) My expectations prior to the contract were larger pay increases that would first begin 18 to 24 months after the amendable date. I never expected to be getting raises prior to that, much less before the amendable date. When I added up how much more I was getting earlier than I had expected to get it, a new amendable date earlier than I had anticipated, the changes to small jet scope and vacation and training pay improvements, it was worth it to me after I weighed it against what I viewed to be negatives (30 day bid periods, sick verification, etc).
I don't lament debate at all. I enjoy it. Broken records that never go anywhere though get tiresome after a while. Especially if someone gives the impression they might be exaggerating. I don't have to read it though, so I got that going for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#133
How did those votes turn out and then what were the final outcomes at the end of the day? What years are we talking about here?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#134
I didn't mean to leave anything out. My apologies. I agree that we gave more after we had already given plenty. I do believe that concessions to get out of bankruptcy were going to happen no matter what. It was the first give where we made the error in my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,542
I'd go for pay banding (widebody, large narrowbody, small narrowbody.) I'd even go for a 3 year freeze. But these gifts must be monetized in the form of increased payrates, over and above what we agree to in the next PWA. At least 20% for the banding and freezes.
Oh, and max out my 401k for me.
Oh, and max out my 401k for me.
#136
I didn't mean to leave anything out. My apologies. I agree that we gave more after we had already given plenty. I do believe that concessions to get out of bankruptcy were going to happen no matter what. It was the first give where we made the error in my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So how/when do we correct that first error? Our current rates are a 34% cut in buying power (based on published inflation) from the rates we had prior to that 32.5% pay cut you reference. So in terms of the buying power of our rates, we've made zero progress and have even slipped backwards by a percent and a half. Where do you see us going from here now that Delta has been out of bankruptcy for over 7 years and is making billions in profits?
#137
Okay. Fair enough.
So how/when do we correct that first error? Our current rates are a 34% cut in buying power (based on published inflation) from the rates we had prior to that 32.5% pay cut you reference. So in terms of the buying power of our rates, we've made zero progress and have even slipped backwards by a percent and a half. Where do you see us going from here now that Delta has been out of bankruptcy for over 7 years and is making billions in profits?
So how/when do we correct that first error? Our current rates are a 34% cut in buying power (based on published inflation) from the rates we had prior to that 32.5% pay cut you reference. So in terms of the buying power of our rates, we've made zero progress and have even slipped backwards by a percent and a half. Where do you see us going from here now that Delta has been out of bankruptcy for over 7 years and is making billions in profits?
I see us continuing to improve and eliminate that gap. That is my desire.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#138
So let me get this straight. Bankruptcy judges are perfectly fine with 42% pay cuts, elimination of major benefits like pensions. But asking for 20% and maxing out 401k, more than 7 years after the "crisis" is over and with our company making billions in profits... well that's just crazy talk?
#139
Ok good. We're making some progress. You said "eliminate that gap." You didn't say "close that gap," i.e. make it smaller. You said "eliminate." Good! So when do you see DALPA announcing this objective of restoration? Or if they don't want to call it restoration, what will they call it? What kind of time frame do you think is reasonable to accomplish this objective?
Last edited by DAL 88 Driver; 07-27-2014 at 10:49 AM.
#140
So let me get this straight. Bankruptcy judges are perfectly fine with 42% pay cuts, elimination of major benefits like pensions. But asking for 20% and maxing out 401k, more than 7 years after the "crisis" is over and with our company making billions in profits... well that's just crazy talk?
Would I like to have it? Heck yes I would! But I guess I'm just pessimistic (or realistic) about being able to get it.
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post