|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1719436)
I agree that there are probably more comprehensive ways to explore many of the issues in the survey. But how do you do that without creating something that's 1000 questions long that way too few of us would likely complete?
Then give a simple yes/no to all the concessionary items being presented. You do NOT give people several options to say yes to a concession, and only one way to say "no", and one way to be unsure. If a majority says no to CDO's, for example, you stop there, and you don't consider the follow-up question on how exactly they should be implemented. You do NOT ask people to rank in order of priority something they already said they don't want to do. That is the height of hypocrisy. Several times, I was ask to give a priority number to one or several items I absolutely don't want to see implemented. If I didn't want to do D and E, I still was asked to rank them next A, B, and C, which I did favor. So the survey puts my priorities down as A, B, C, D, then E! How nice... So you can shorten the survey be eliminating these false choices. The survey doesn't need to be longer to be accurate, it just needs to be better written to gauge sentiment in a neural manner. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1719458)
Exactly how? How can anyone make that claim when we haven't seen the rotation construction strategies that may be employed by management?
Carl Carl is basically correct. I am sure there will be a minimum number of more Pilots required (reserve pay equality etc) but it may be very, very small. It depends how the company changes the trips. But either way it will be a benefit to the Pilot group. A. If the company did not change the trips at all we would need more Pilots. B. The company can increase the efficiency of trips to minimize credit. This would minimize the additional Pilots required but would have guys spending less time at work. Lets face it going from a 4:30 ADG with two carve-outs to a 5:15 ADG with the more onerous carve-out removed can not be anything but good for the Pilot group. Scoop |
They invented $25 bag fees out of thin air and have no problem collecting them. They're running a multi-billion dollar corporation, and running it so well they're making literally billions in profits. I think they're talented enough to find a way to net $3 to $4 more per passenger in order to stop paying the pilots as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Delta will actually make more on ticket Change fees than bag fees. Over a billion each. So many of the apologists live in the past and talk from both sides of their mouths. They work full time to tell you we can't have hourly rates that are over a decade old and then rail that our execs deserve the 300% to 700% increase in compensation they have received since bankruptcy. How can we share in the success we created when our own pilots are working against us? The biggest mystery in my career is why pilots run for union office and do union work fighting for management. I fully support pilots who want to work for free, but doing union work and subverting our profession is disgusting and dishonorable. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1719454)
I don't like to gratuitously criticize the work of others, but in this case I have to agree with you. I felt that I was being taken for a moron.
One of the questions that always has everyone foaming at the mouth is % pay increases. While there is a good question at the very end asking what our total cost increase should be, the questions on pay increases only address the initial increase, and only in the context of TVM. It seems to me we used to be asked what we wanted to see throughout the contract. I understand that the timing of the initial increase matters, but then again, it's not just the initial increase that tells the story. For example, I think 12% is a good initial number, but only if it's something like 12/8/8/7 AND the other sections are strengthened substantially. 12/5/5/5, not good enough. 12/0/0/0... DOA. So even on this most basic of points of gauging pay expectations, the survey fails. In the end, I used the text box and the overall increase at the end to express my expectations. |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1719470)
In the end, I used the text box and the overall increase at the end to express my expectations.
1) How do you think they're going to tabulate the free text results to get a picture of what the average pilot wants? 2) How do you weigh the opinion of a pilot that doesn't use the free text box, vs. one that doesn't? Bonus: What's the reason they couldn't ask a second question about overall compensation increases throughout the duration of the contract, when they asked three questions about the initial increase at different intervals? |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 1719390)
I actually think ALPA is the best choice and they have done a lot of good (all organizations (YES, EVERY SINGLE ONE) have greedy, corrupt politics and members). We need guys like you to help reshape and better the organization. It is a hard and tedious task and might take a long time to accomplish, but one day natural laws will "right-side" it.
TEN Carl |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1719456)
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. The survey asked under what circumstance, if any, would CDOs be acceptable. It's a straightforward question to which I gave a straightforward answer -- NO.
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1719416)
Well you keep dancing around issues, never sticking to one argument. C2012 was NOT cost neutral for Delta pilots, it increased our compensation by $1 billion.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1719416)
Your previous argument was that it was cost neutral for Delta pilots and that is wrong and it is apparent that you are abandoning that argument at least until you dredge it up again.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1719417)
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider it. We're not given cleanopportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it? Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A? Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B? Do you not want to go down this path? You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement. This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65. This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over. I expected much better. Carl |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1719279)
Those two positions seem somewhat inconsistent.
Profit sharing and stock options are both forms of compensation that is "at risk" based on the company's performance. Why is profit sharing so good but stock options are bad? While the market is very rational in the long term, it can be very irrational in the short term. That is the problem with stock options. Not only do they have a limited shelf life, thus more subject to the silly short term fluctuations of the market, but you also have to be right not only about the predicted direction of a stock price, but also the magnitude of the direction. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands