Details on Delta TA
05-21-2015, 12:41 PM
#4491
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
[QUOTE=Check Essential;1885627]I don't think so.
ALPA has to be worried they would not survive another C2012.
I have to disagree with this statement.
For a while I thought things had changed. The MEC Chairman and the NC were saying all the right things.
In reality nothing has changed. Donatelli has on his Tim O'Malley company hat. He is attempting to drive management's agenda with all his might.
The arrogance and ignorance of the insiders is unchecked. They have no fear and maybe they are right. Unless and until the line pilots recall the leaders who allow this behavior, nothing will change.
Just think how little respect management has for these guys. Just asking for more 76 seat jets for the DCI carriers is the ultimate insult.
What's next? Prima Nocta?
They can have more 76 seat jets at DCI as soon as we get their 700% compensation increases and they restore our DB plan.
ALPA has to be worried they would not survive another C2012.
I have to disagree with this statement.
For a while I thought things had changed. The MEC Chairman and the NC were saying all the right things.
In reality nothing has changed. Donatelli has on his Tim O'Malley company hat. He is attempting to drive management's agenda with all his might.
The arrogance and ignorance of the insiders is unchecked. They have no fear and maybe they are right. Unless and until the line pilots recall the leaders who allow this behavior, nothing will change.
Just think how little respect management has for these guys. Just asking for more 76 seat jets for the DCI carriers is the ultimate insult.
What's next? Prima Nocta?
They can have more 76 seat jets at DCI as soon as we get their 700% compensation increases and they restore our DB plan.
Last edited by gzsg; 05-21-2015 at 01:08 PM.
05-21-2015, 12:48 PM
#4492
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Timbo
New rumor:
Say good bye to dropping trips for IOE...
Funny how these rumors keep popping up, like 4,8,3,3 but then suddenly end up in our CBA.
Say good bye to dropping trips for IOE...
Funny how these rumors keep popping up, like 4,8,3,3 but then suddenly end up in our CBA.
If true and is ratified, I can guarantee at least one additional training cycle.
05-21-2015, 01:55 PM
#4495
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by index
Is that the best you can come up with sailingfud? You act as if that's the only possible explanation; they're liars!
I have no doubt they were telling the truth. That doesn't mean THEY weren't lied to. Or maybe just not told the whole truth. If you think the MEC is running the show you are living in a fantasy world. The NC and Master Chairman, along with the Shadow MEC do. They are the real power players. The rest, like you and I, are along for the ride.
see above
Do you remember during the 777 negotiations when the MEC directed the NC to stop negotiating with the company on the 777, because the company was stonewalling? And then several weeks later Malone/Giambusso called a Special Meeting in Atlanta and, much to the surprise of the reps, announced that a TA had been reached on the 777??? All while no negotiations were going on. Amazing how that happened. How could that be sailingfud?
First off sailingfud, it's "were," not "we are."
The reps are the next last to know what's going on. We're the last. The Chief Pilots likely know more of what's going on at the table than the MEC.
Just like the rumor of 4/8/3/3 sailingfud. The agreement that you said would never pass. Until you advocated strongly for it.
Are you going to do the same thing again this time, or are you just going to come out of the chute strongly for it? What's your strategy this time? Going to mix it up or go with what worked last time?
I have no doubt they were telling the truth. That doesn't mean THEY weren't lied to. Or maybe just not told the whole truth. If you think the MEC is running the show you are living in a fantasy world. The NC and Master Chairman, along with the Shadow MEC do. They are the real power players. The rest, like you and I, are along for the ride.
see above
Do you remember during the 777 negotiations when the MEC directed the NC to stop negotiating with the company on the 777, because the company was stonewalling? And then several weeks later Malone/Giambusso called a Special Meeting in Atlanta and, much to the surprise of the reps, announced that a TA had been reached on the 777??? All while no negotiations were going on. Amazing how that happened. How could that be sailingfud?
First off sailingfud, it's "were," not "we are."
The reps are the next last to know what's going on. We're the last. The Chief Pilots likely know more of what's going on at the table than the MEC.
Just like the rumor of 4/8/3/3 sailingfud. The agreement that you said would never pass. Until you advocated strongly for it.
Are you going to do the same thing again this time, or are you just going to come out of the chute strongly for it? What's your strategy this time? Going to mix it up or go with what worked last time?
As far as contract 2012 I can't say I was a strong advocate for it and did not change my vote until the last day to a yes after a long discussion with a member of the negotiating committee. What I did try and do is educate myself and clarify some of the wild stuff posted on here.
In the end the yes vote turned out far better then I could have imagined at the time and is directly responsible for us now being in the most favorable negotiating climate in the last 15 years.
Funny that a quick glance at any avaition web board shows Delta is the place people want to be. Strange how that happened!
05-21-2015, 02:26 PM
#4496
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Schwanker
Automatic NO vote for me!
If true and is ratified, I can guarantee at least one additional training cycle.
If true and is ratified, I can guarantee at least one additional training cycle.
05-21-2015, 02:35 PM
#4497
Wind the clock beoch
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by 3 green
X2..I can't imagine why any FO would vote yes for a TA that contained a change to LCA bidding...All the junior FO's will be senior soon and will wish they still had the current format.
05-21-2015, 02:44 PM
#4498
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Ok, I posted where my info came from as did other pilots. Can you tell us where the info you have is from that compensation proposals were exchanged back then.
As far as contract 2012 I can't say I was a strong advocate for it and did not change my vote until the last day to a yes after a long discussion with a member of the negotiating committee. What I did try and do is educate myself and clarify some of the wild stuff posted on here.
In the end the yes vote turned out far better then I could have imagined at the time and is directly responsible for us now being in the most favorable negotiating climate in the last 15 years.
Funny that a quick glance at any avaition web board shows Delta is the place people want to be. Strange how that happened!
As far as contract 2012 I can't say I was a strong advocate for it and did not change my vote until the last day to a yes after a long discussion with a member of the negotiating committee. What I did try and do is educate myself and clarify some of the wild stuff posted on here.
In the end the yes vote turned out far better then I could have imagined at the time and is directly responsible for us now being in the most favorable negotiating climate in the last 15 years.
Funny that a quick glance at any avaition web board shows Delta is the place people want to be. Strange how that happened!
Why should we, as pilots, care that DAL is currently a first choice of pilot applicants? Every legacy/major was at one pont the "place to be". So should we be prideful and proud that we are at a company that other pilots would like to work. Does it provide you some comfort that others wish to be in your shoes
Doesn't sound much like a rational, unemotional perspective if you ask me.
05-21-2015, 02:57 PM
#4499
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Army80
Carl,
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
Originally Posted by Army80
2. They believe that in order to accomplish #1, they need to start with the pilots. (The other groups can be done without negotiating) The optics of cutting the non union profit sharing, without cutting the pilot's profit sharing, could be pretty ugly.
Originally Posted by Army80
3. A contract that adds cost to the pilot group can be offset by the savings garnered from the rest of the employee's profit sharing reduction. Even though the rest of workers will probably see a pay increase, it can be sold in with smoke and mirrors to look like it's a net gain.
Originally Posted by Army80
I don't see the company's desire to get a quick deal as an automatically bad deal for us.
Carl
05-21-2015, 03:10 PM
#4500
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by pilotstats
Thank you. I'm glad that you agree with my analysis. You and I are quite in agreement that the "devil is in the details". See above from the original scenario posed. Of course it is vital to evaluate the remainder of the deal! I would not state otherwise.
The original was exercise to show that when controlling for other variables, a profit-sharing to pay conversion is just that, a conversion... not a concession.
It will help us all if we are using the same definitions, so let me know if you agree or not with the following in a contractual context:
Concession- the act of removing a contractual provision or protection where either: value is lost, no quid is made, no value is added elsewhere. Party A has a reduced value of their agreement going forward, and Party B has increased it's value within the agreement.
Exchange/Conversion/Trade-When two parties alter a contract where party A reduces the value of a provision or protection, and receives that value elsewhere in an agreement at the expense of party B. Also known as a "quid". Overall value remains the same to parties A and B, but the value is shifted to different areas than before the change.
Improvement/Gains-Where party A is able to increase the value of an agreement above and beyond the status quo. The end result being greater for party A than prior to the modified agreement.
Do you agree with those definitions?
The original was exercise to show that when controlling for other variables, a profit-sharing to pay conversion is just that, a conversion... not a concession.
It will help us all if we are using the same definitions, so let me know if you agree or not with the following in a contractual context:
Concession- the act of removing a contractual provision or protection where either: value is lost, no quid is made, no value is added elsewhere. Party A has a reduced value of their agreement going forward, and Party B has increased it's value within the agreement.
Exchange/Conversion/Trade-When two parties alter a contract where party A reduces the value of a provision or protection, and receives that value elsewhere in an agreement at the expense of party B. Also known as a "quid". Overall value remains the same to parties A and B, but the value is shifted to different areas than before the change.
Improvement/Gains-Where party A is able to increase the value of an agreement above and beyond the status quo. The end result being greater for party A than prior to the modified agreement.
Do you agree with those definitions?
Next question for you: When this TA comes out with pay rate increases and reductions in profit sharing, will you consider it an Exchange/Conversion/Trade?
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
