As a fellow Delta crewmember (on the other side of the cockpit door) and as a pilot that's about a dozen hours away from a CPL I wish you guys the best during negotiations.

We have 0 bargaining power as do the rest of the employee groups (aside from the dispatchers) and even though many of you disagree over the effectiveness of ALPA, at least you do have the chance for section 6 negotiations.

I have to say that I am surprised that the Pilot Medical Plan isn't much better than what's offered to everyone else. I also don't see many people talking about the degradation of our health insurance. Is anyone concerned about this or you're just more focused on other areas?

Good luck to you all, and I hope you get as much as possible out of RA et all. Yes, they've turned the company around but it's time to open up the wallet and give back. Please don't settle...

 

That's funny. I find my quality of life vastly improved over the last few years. I will ask you again. Do you want to go to the "good ol' days" of C2K? (work rules that is, I acknowledge that the pay rates were vastly superior).

-- No vacation slide.
-- No bidding for CQ. The company--not you--determined when you went to recurrent.
-- 9 hour layover, reducible to 8. And you are complaining about 10 hours?
-- No Duty Period Average, no Average Daily Guarantee. Starting in November every trip will average 5.15 a day min, both for regular and reserve pilots. This was achieved by an LOA you apparently lament.

Etc.

Also, I recommend you change your screen name. Yes we all have "unique" screen names, some more so than others. But as long as you call yourself "Poostain" you could be God himself and no one will take you seriously. ("Gee Margaret, looks like the union is all riled up. I even heard that 'Poostain' is upset.")

 

Thanks for the advise. Still wondering why you gave me a serious reply to my post is the screen name seriouspilotdude taken? Would that suit you?

 

Good point. I bet we could discuss over a beer sometime. In fact, other than PD, I could probably have an enjoyable evening over some beers with everyone who posts here, whether we agree or not.

I might even enjoy a beer with PD, whoever he is.

 

Alan, you're clearly a very big fan of DALPA and that's fine. But you get too testy when people point out the bad side of DALPA and there's no need for that. My only desire is honest and open debate. In that effort, I have been threatened and harassed via PM by sitting DALPA reps and administrators. I couldn't care less, but I tell you this so you'll know that history here shows DALPA as the uncomfortable entity with honest and open debate.

First of all, there's no question that our TA was agreed to completely outside the Section 6 process. Second, there are very few of us with personal knowledge because very few of us were in the room. When that happens, you must find evidence and connect dots...unless you just wish to believe whatever you're told. The fact that the entire process took two months before Section 6 even began and the NC and MEC administrators dutifully stated management's threat of what would happen if we didn't vote yes, shows me little to no negotiations took place.

Your beliefs seem to stem from what you've been told by DALPA. You have every right to do that. I also have the right to believe where the clear evidence points.

Carl

 

+1...peace

 

Our current rates are a 34% reduction in buying power versus 2004 C2K. For a 51% W2 increase (the amount it would take for full restoration), I could live with all that.

10 hours is the minimum layover per FAR 117, so the 9 hour layover, reducible to 8 is no longer legal and is therefore an irrelevant point.

Are you seriously suggesting that you'd prefer your above list over a 51% pay increase?

 

That's simply not true Alan. My reps were obviously never of the belief that the scary Plan B would result in less because they voted NO. Further, those reps that approved the TA did so for a mix of reasons. Some thought the deal was awesome, while others did so for the specific reason of being afraid of Plan B and the other admin scare tactics. I know this from talking to my reps directly. So for you to conflate approving the TA with the MEC believing or not believing that a NO vote would result in something scarier, is a huge stretch. You did use the word "apparently" however.

No, I'm saying this one was. Our reps gave clear guidance to the NC and that guidance was not followed. Rather than seek advice, the NC signed the deal with management and put forth a huge negative campaign to our reps of what would happen if they didn't support the NC. Reps who were in the room called it an incredible week of fear tactics and arm twisting. In the end, reps that voted YES and reps that voted NO said they felt like they'd been put in a no-win situation. After the vote, the reps cleaned house...which should tell you something.

Carl

 

All three were no votes by the pilots. I also think our 1998 strike included a proposal that was given to the members with either a no or neutral recommendation, but I can't remember for sure.

1979 or 1980, then 1983 and 1991 if memory serves.

Carl

 

There's no clear evidence Carl. There is only your opinion. Stop trying to paint your view as proven fact while you paint the beliefs of those who disagree with you as opinion. If you want to believe that negotiations didn't occur, feel free to do so. Just stop claiming your beliefs to be facts as you have no evidence to back your claim.