It's not a belief, it simply is. Potential pay rate increases are able to be costed down to the dollar. Potential profit sharing cannot be quantified because you only know the agreed to percentage...not the future profit by which you would multiply that percentage. As far as the NMB is concerned during Section 6, pay rates are not tied to profit sharing in any way.

I never said there is no cost associated with potential profit sharing. I've said you cannot know what that cost will be. If you cannot know, you cannot cost. If you cannot cost, the NMB will not consider it as a positive or a negative. They will simply dismiss it from consideration as a final road block to an agreement.

Carl

 

Contract time comes, and it's like they send up the bat signal that attracts the biggest union political blowhards out there.

 

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

 

You seem to now place some importance in the NMB. In the past you seemed to beleive that the NMB and their statements were irrelevant. Why the change?

 

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

 

I can only go by what you've written here, but I don't see a problem. If the company were to make the claim that pilots will not be unduly harmed by pilots refusing to give up profit sharing, I would say: "You're right. Pilots don't make proposals to harm themselves."

What am I missing here?

Carl

 

As opposed to those who continuously bloviate here.

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.

 

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?

 

They said no such thing sailingfun.

Carl

 

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.