Details on Delta TA
#3482
Contrary to spackler's belief, the company can make a projection of probable value, certainly within a range of probable values. They do such things all the time, with fuel hedging for example. The point is they can project a number greater than zero if they see continued profitability. If they see a cliff coming (extreme case) they can elect to reject moves to monetize, knowing that they will likely not have to pay any PS.
So, can the company make projections? Absolutely. Does that matter in any way during Section 6? Absolutely not.
Carl
#3483
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,306
Projections and probabilities aren't acceptable in a Section 6 costing sheet. Neither side wants to be tied to or offer projections and probabilities as an actual cost. There's no upside to doing that since the NMB would reject it out of hand on behalf of the first side to object to it.
So, can the company make projections? Absolutely. Does that matter in any way during Section 6? Absolutely not.
Carl
So, can the company make projections? Absolutely. Does that matter in any way during Section 6? Absolutely not.
Carl
#3484
I've always placed high importance on the NMB. All of your Section 6 strategies have to include the NMB as being the final arbiter.
Not at all. What I objected to is when you and Slowplay and alfaromeo described the NMB as an insurmountable hurdle. You repeatedly said the NMB's PowerPoint presentation showed them telling us they'll park us indefinitely if we didn't play nice, etc. When I asked you guys to show me exactly what slide(s) of the NMB PowerPoint backed up your claim, you said the NMB stated it in closed session. When I asked my reps if that was ever said in closed session, my reps said the NMB never said or inferred anything like a threat of being parked or anything threatening at all
When members of my own union used a statement from the NMB (that never happened) as a tool to get members to believe there was no hope in fighting management for an industry leading contract, I objected to that. I still object to that. Although in fairness, I haven't heard you guys do this yet in this Section 6.
Carl
When members of my own union used a statement from the NMB (that never happened) as a tool to get members to believe there was no hope in fighting management for an industry leading contract, I objected to that. I still object to that. Although in fairness, I haven't heard you guys do this yet in this Section 6.
Carl
#3485
What am I missing here?
Carl
#3486
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
I would think that it's a good thing to welcome pilots with differing opinions to come here and discuss issues, whether you agree with them or not. Perhaps even engage in a debate on the issues without childish name calling.
#3487
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,306
I've always placed high importance on the NMB. All of your Section 6 strategies have to include the NMB as being the final arbiter.
Not at all. What I objected to is when you and Slowplay and alfaromeo described the NMB as an insurmountable hurdle. You repeatedly said the NMB's PowerPoint presentation showed them telling us they'll park us indefinitely if we didn't play nice, etc. When I asked you guys to show me exactly what slide(s) of the NMB PowerPoint backed up your claim, you said the NMB stated it in closed session. When I asked my reps if that was ever said in closed session, my reps said the NMB never said or inferred anything like a threat of being parked or anything threatening at all
When members of my own union used a statement from the NMB (that never happened) as a tool to get members to believe there was no hope in fighting management for an industry leading contract, I objected to that. I still object to that. Although in fairness, I haven't heard you guys do this yet in this Section 6.
Carl
Not at all. What I objected to is when you and Slowplay and alfaromeo described the NMB as an insurmountable hurdle. You repeatedly said the NMB's PowerPoint presentation showed them telling us they'll park us indefinitely if we didn't play nice, etc. When I asked you guys to show me exactly what slide(s) of the NMB PowerPoint backed up your claim, you said the NMB stated it in closed session. When I asked my reps if that was ever said in closed session, my reps said the NMB never said or inferred anything like a threat of being parked or anything threatening at all
When members of my own union used a statement from the NMB (that never happened) as a tool to get members to believe there was no hope in fighting management for an industry leading contract, I objected to that. I still object to that. Although in fairness, I haven't heard you guys do this yet in this Section 6.
Carl
#3488
Carl, I posted a link to both the NMB timeline and a link from the NMB website about their definition of reasonableness. They most certainly did state to the MEC that it would be a 3 years at least before they could get truly involved in contract 2012. That would be around when?
Carl
#3489
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,306
It looks like the PowerPoint is no longer posted but a short summary is available.
We encourage each and every pilot to review the PowerPoint presentation by NMB Chairman Linda Puchala to the MEC in January. It is posted on the Section 6 page of the Delta MEC website. What the NMB presentation tells us is that we should expect that a traditional Section 6 negotiation using traditional strategies and techniques will likely take several years. While the process might be accelerated to some degree by limiting the number of open items and operating within the NMB- defined “zone of reasonableness,” it is apparent from this presentation and the recent experience of other pilot groups locked in lengthy mediation that this type of timeline is indeed realistic when using traditional approaches.
We encourage each and every pilot to review the PowerPoint presentation by NMB Chairman Linda Puchala to the MEC in January. It is posted on the Section 6 page of the Delta MEC website. What the NMB presentation tells us is that we should expect that a traditional Section 6 negotiation using traditional strategies and techniques will likely take several years. While the process might be accelerated to some degree by limiting the number of open items and operating within the NMB- defined “zone of reasonableness,” it is apparent from this presentation and the recent experience of other pilot groups locked in lengthy mediation that this type of timeline is indeed realistic when using traditional approaches.
#3490
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 7ER Capt
Posts: 461
We have the best negotiating environment I've seen in 26yrs, yet there are those that appear as timid as when we were losing our shirts. Seriously, 0 debt in 2yrs... practically printing money...
I really don't understand the timidity... if not now, when? We should be shooting for the moon... or the lost decade truly was lost.
Let management/shareholders worry about themselves.
Let us concentrate on restoring this profession.
I really don't understand the timidity... if not now, when? We should be shooting for the moon... or the lost decade truly was lost.
Let management/shareholders worry about themselves.
Let us concentrate on restoring this profession.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post