In answer to your first question, because, if it is condoned by the union (or even thought to be), it is a violation of the "status quo" required by the RLA. This happened to us once before and the company got injunctive relief along with 49 hostages. (They got them by suing them for supposedly coordinating a no overtime campaign.)

We are currently following the contract but you can follow the contract by not doing thing allowed in the contract such as flying overtime. This could put a world of hurt on the company during negotiations but it is a change in "status quo."

Denny

I find it interesting that you seem to agree too. This idea that I'm advocating screaming "restoration" and holding my breath until I'm blue in the face is a misnomer. It's a way of trying to discredit what I'm saying by making it seem extreme.

I've said repeatedly (and I think very clearly) that restoration should be our objective. Certainly, we should state it so that everyone concerned knows our intentions. But it doesn't mean we have to be unprofessional or amateurish about it.

Go back and read gloopy's post again. It is very consistent with what I have said in the past.

It's hard to assign a percentage to DALPA's responsibility for our situation. Certainly, 9/11 and the subsequent airline bankruptcies (including ours) had a lot to do with the initial massive concessions. I don't think we should have taken quite the extreme level of cuts we did... so there's some blame for DALPA. Don't get me wrong. Back in 2004, Delta was in a very bad situation... partly as a result of 9/11 and partly as a result of extremely poor management. I totally agree that we needed to do our part to help out. Without cost cuts, including employee cost cuts, the company was probably going to go away and we'd all be out of a job. But a 32.5% pay cut? That's ridiculous. I could have seen maybe something like 15% since the situation was so dire. But 32.5% is unprecedented. We were being asked to do MORE than our part. The only reason they could get away with something like that is because of the seniority system and the fact that we can't make lateral moves in this profession.

But that was all back in 2004. Delta emerged from bankruptcy in 2007 and has been leading the industry ever since. It's now 2014. Our company is making billions in profits and our industry has been restructured in a way that should facilitate more consistent profits and less extreme cycles going forward. And DALPA has acted this whole time like we never expect to return to anything even close to the standard of living our compensation provided for decades prior to 9/11.

I'm not breaking any new ground here, Oberon. I've said all this before... multiple times. For us to take the kind of extreme, draconian cuts we took. And then for DALPA to act like it's just the new deal and we don't expect to be restored and they even work to lower expectations in our pilot group. Well, sorry but I think that is unforgivable. It's a complete failure of representation. There's blame to go around, but at this point the lion's share of it goes to DALPA.

No. Nice try. They were NOT simply "withdrawn."

They were negotiated away by giving back some QOL for reserve pilots the NC had already negotiated. Remember that?

So Dalpa expended negotiating capital to get CDOs. And expended it to have them removed. Buffoonery.

Doesn't inspire much confidence leading up to C15.

They had the "all the tools" they needed to succeed. So what happened?

Negotiations involve give and take. This example was unusual in that some of the give and take happened after some TA language was agreed to.

While the entire CDO part was a mess, the end result was very good. "What happened" is that reserve long callout remained where it had been since C2K at 12 hours. "What happened" was that the ADG kicks in Nov 1, effective forever from that point forward, and it applies to reserves and dh-only duty periods, both a first.

When I got hired in the "good ol' days" of the late 90s, reserve was automatic short call at 0300 on your first on call day--without exception. Our equivalent of the Duty Period Average back then was called Variable Minimum (VM). The VM did not apply to reserves, and a 2-day trip that will now pay a minimum of 10.30 for reserves could pay as little as four back then.

We have made some significant improvements to the reserve pilot's work rules over the years. Many improvements (pay, scope and reroute come immediately to mind) remain to be secured, but while our list of improvements may not scream "stop the presses" to anyone, compounded on top of one another they have made this job a lot better since the worst of 2004-06.

How many people on the DPA survey are interested in CDOs? It seems there is a faction of Delta pilots who want them (I'm indifferent). When one group of pilots organizes a motion to bargain for CDOs and another organizes a revolt against them once they have been negotiated it presents a dilemma.

It would have been better if both sides had been heard prior to negotiations but I don't know how the NC could have known CDOs were so polarizing. I'm guessing a lesson was learned. While the situation could have been handled better I disagree that giving up one hour of long call to drop CDOs was "buffoonery".

Why did you choose to use the word " buffoonery"? Do you believe our elected reps or negotiating committee is unintelligent?

Maybe I'm coming late to the party, but it was my understanding that the company wanted the CDOs, and we were willing to go along under certain conditions. How does equate to expending negotiating capital to get CDOs?

We asked the company for a 5:15 daily minimum. The company spent several weeks costing that out. They had to run mock bids for every month of the year after changing every rotation to try and see what the true costs would be. The cost was high. Some pilots who had flown CDO's wanted them back. If you can offer something the pilots want and the company finds attractive it can be used as a offset. It was a very small offset to the total costs.

When Timbo said this...

...you said this.

That is pretty much the opposite of what gloopy was talking about in his post.

He says...

DAL88Driver again
I take that to mean you want our reps talking about restoration now.

On September 15 in response to tsquares question about your strategy you said this.

What were you talking about? When someone says they have ideas they won't post my first thought is illegal job action. Is that not the case?

The message I get from you is that our reps are screwing up because they don't talk about restoration. Am I off base?

<<<<Quote:
I have some ideas, but it would be foolish to post them here.>>>>

But yet, some think that publishing survey results here is "unfoolish"? I think everyone thinks that for the most part that pilots "think like they do" and that there is going to be this unified support on every issue that they hold dear like "CDOs." (We can see from the DPA survey that they aren't that unpopular over there).

The perception now is a vast majority of pilots do not want CDOs (I certainly don't) but say the survey shows a majority of pilots actually want them? The company comes to the table demanding them.... Do you have more or less leverage with the company knowing exactly the percentage of pilots who want them?

To me it is exactly the same reason you wouldn't publish your complete strategy (assuming you were actually in a position to implement it and not just typing on a forum) until you were ready for action.

I assume you mean 5:15 daily average.

Makes sense. Thanks for that. My question remains, however -- Did we expend negotiating capital to put CDOs into the original deal?

From what you're saying, we did not. Am I understanding you correctly?