I expect them to get me as much as they can at every opportunity. FWIW, this isn't progress with me. I've always felt this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree. We all want it. We need every carrier making progress to grease that skid. It's getting there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So we helped "pattern bargain" the rest of the profession into bankruptcy level compensation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we took the largest pay cuts of anyone (42% cumulative to be specific). So a 42% pay cut requires a 73% increase to get back to square one. That's just straight math. Therefore, if restoration is the goal then the "pattern" has to be pretty aggressive.

We've indicated (through both our actions and the tone we have set) that we don't expect an aggressive pattern. We've indicated that we're more interested in being "reasonable" than we are in restoring our profession and our careers. At least in part because of the success of our company post bankruptcy, we've been in a position of leadership within our profession. In some ways, we've set a tone (and a pattern) that works against anyone else being able to get the kinds of improvements that are necessary for restoration.

I agree we all "want" to have our pay restored. But if we're going to hang our hat on pattern bargaining, we're going to have to find a way to create a more aggressive pattern. Novel idea: Perhaps that could start with setting an objective and quantifying it.

Or we could just focus on how unprecedented it would be to get the level of improvements necessary and how no one else is doing it first. In other words, we could give up and resign ourselves to accepting bankruptcy as a reset...

 

I believe you. The problem I see with that is it is exactly DALPA's mantra. Coming from DALPA, I think it's a cop out. It's political doublespeak that doesn't really say anything. No objective that can be quantified... so they can claim success with whatever they are able to get. It's classic CYA.


You're a pretty big DALPA supporter, right? DALPA thinks it's very significant progress. How do you reconcile that?

 

While I voted "No" on C2012 I thought the best part of the contract was its short duration - we are now in a position (even without pattern bargaining) to make some significant gains (my definition of significant is >10%/year increases in pay). The thing to remember (and this is why the company fights so hard to keep our pay and benefits down) is in order to keep other employee unions off the property the other employee groups benefit (almost directly) from any improvements in our contract. Because a number of things are unique to the pilots job we should look to increase our benefits in other areas - per diem, training pay, value of vacation day, more vacation for senior pilots, better pay for distributed training, etc. Although those by themselves will not make us whole it will improve our chances of an overall good contract.

 

So, you're saying these "demands" are unreasonable?

Monetizing pay banding so that it's not a concession?

This has got nothing to do with the rest of the world. Picketing is a complete waste of effort. We will never win anything in the court of public opinion. Bankruptcy judges are -- for the time being -- irrelevant. It's about leverage and negotiating. Period.

 

Is there a parallel universe where we tried it your way, gave DAL the finger and just waited for the judge to decide on the 1113(c) filing? Full pay till the last day? Did it finally work?

Tell us! Did the judge let us keep our C2K pay rates? How about the DB plan? What about PRPs? Did we still get the equity stake and profit sharing? The seat on the BOD?

Or did the judge dissolve our contract and kick us in the nuts?


Is this guy there too?

Or is your entire platform an overblown example of Monday morning quarterbacking?

Eliminate uncertainty.

 

Are you saying: "If they pay me enough, pay banding is not a concession." If so, I cannot agree with that.

Denny

 

We will never know. Cronic yes men voted away your future earnings long before a judge had to rule and now you've traded QOL to get back to 50% of where you were (assumes C2K plus inflation and $100 / hr into DB). How is it working for you? I find it still embarrassing chatting with the generation before you who knew you guys would blow it. It's up to the new guys we are hiring now to vote as required and un-foxtrot the situation with a little backbone.

 

Clearly, we'll never know for sure what the BK judge would have done had we not agreed to LOA 46. Question is, would he have ordered something of the .magnitude of 46 and 51 combined?