|
Originally Posted by orvil
(Post 1878786)
I was a Family Awareness host in Contract '96. After I served beer, wine and snacks at the first meeting, the attendance dropped off by about 50%. They all gave Bible study as their excuse for subsequent meetings. I kid you not. This isn't a joke. (Of course, it was in DFW.)
Is it any wonder why the TA's always pass? He said he had 3x more pilots calling him begging him to vote yes for it, than against it, because, "I just bought a big house and I can't afford a strike..." He said in his own, personal vote, he voted against it (as did I) but as an LEC rep, for his constituents who were calling him, he had to vote yes. I've got to wonder if this is still the case today? Are 60% of the pilots so in debt they cannot miss a paycheck? Is that why our MEC is hung up on proactive appeasement? :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1878706)
Some good news, I did just receive the first issue of Table Talk, the Family Awareness Program's new letter. I'm wondering why this wasn't sent out at least 6 months ago, with the Contract Comparison booklet we got back then.
I'm glad to see the MEC is finally thinking about Family Awareness, I fear it may be too little, too late however, if Richard gets his way this T/A may be done before the next issue of Table Talk goes to print. There were some other nuggets in there about teaching my wife to say yes, but will be lost on her! :p |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1878617)
To avoid very large profit sharing payouts to pilots and other non-Union Delta employees. It's a 3-way win for them:
1. They get us to self fund our gains 2. They pay out far less to pilots given 2015's large profit forecast 3. They pay out far less to non-Union employees because they can do so at their whim and use the pilots' reductions as justification That's the rush here. Carl Don't forget that the items that save the company money will be codified instantly, and the good bits for pilots will take several month to "program". |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1878681)
I don't know man. By a 10-9 margin, we're not Mike Tyson. We're this "guy":
http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...ebecca-dru.jpg Carl :D |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1878632)
I think that is the concern of many. This is especially true for the folks who have been around long enough to see the playbook used before. As the letter said, the battle plan doesn't survive first contact...except for the post TA battle plan sales job cram down. Then it is never strayed from.
As a new guy, your threat view is different from mine and mine is different from Timbo's. I am really, really concerned about a top end scope cave. China Eastern is going to get written in somehow. Recall we recently and dramatically gave up significant NRT flying protections for a (IMO) lesser pacific flying floor. Seattle is capacity maxed for now. Everyone on the planet but us can figure out how to make money with 777s. Big airplanes vacume everyone up to a higher paying seat. I am in the camp that believes a TA is shortly forthcoming. I expect it to be meh...just been at the dance long enough...I'm not a marine, the fat chick is not a win. TEN |
Originally Posted by pilotc90a
(Post 1878802)
Don't forget that the items that save the company money will be codified instantly, and the good bits for pilots will take several month to "program".
MOU 14-01 Implementation Schedule for LOA 14-01 express prohibited the company from using the FAR 117 FDP's until the implementation of the 5:15 ADG, among other things. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1878845)
Factually incorrect.
MOU 14-01 Implementation Schedule for LOA 14-01 express prohibited the company from using the FAR 117 FDP's until the implementation of the 5:15 ADG, among other things. He is "factually" incorrect because you can cite one example, reasonable doubt and all. The reality is he is more correct than not. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1878857)
You cite one example? And say among other things?
He is "factually" incorrect because you can cite one example, reasonable doubt and all. The reality is he is more correct than not. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1878857)
You cite one example? And say among other things?
He is "factually" incorrect because you can cite one example, reasonable doubt and all. The reality is he is more correct than not. C2012 had plenty of examples of delayed implementations. Some due to programming constraints (ADG 4:30 comes to mind off the cuff) while others like increasing the value of a vacation day were phased in in the subsequent vacation year to keep everyone on the same page. Another big one is the 76 seat RJ deliveries being predicated on 717's being delivered and 50 seaters being parked first. They didn't get theirs until we got ours. The premise that the company gets theirs first while we have to wait is neither accurate nor a foregone conclusion in any future agreement. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1878681)
I don't know man. By a 10-9 margin, we're not Mike Tyson. We're this "guy":
http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...ebecca-dru.jpg Carl Flying the Line, Chapter 1: “Most pilots don’t know any more about politics than they do pink tights,” Behncke once grumbled. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:28 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands