Details on Delta TA
05-23-2015 | 07:00 AM
#4701
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 4
Withholding trips from being awarded to FO's cannot be allowed to pass under any circumstance.
Think about it, you could be #1 in your category and not get any trip you bid. It'd be like playing poker with 45 cards in the deck and they don't tell you which 7 are missing.
Think about it, you could be #1 in your category and not get any trip you bid. It'd be like playing poker with 45 cards in the deck and they don't tell you which 7 are missing.
05-23-2015 | 07:44 AM
#4705
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
They could, but that would cost them a revenue seat for the DHing pilot (First Class for TOEs), hotels, and per diem. A price worth paying to play hardball?
05-23-2015 | 07:47 AM
#4706
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
If it's true that he dropped all his Delta trips and was paid for those dropped drips by DALPA flight pay loss, while working as a paid consultant for the United pilots, everyone can decide for themselves whether that's an example of corruption.
Regarding being ineffective, I don't think anyone has said that. He's very effective...at taking care of himself and acquiring personal power.
Carl
05-23-2015 | 07:49 AM
#4707
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Harwood is undeniably a smart guy but he should be kept far far away from anything having to do with direct negotiations. If our MEC is listening to him on bargaining strategy or estimates of our bargaining power then we are in deep trouble.
The biggest problem I have with him is his clear bias toward and deference to management, the NMB and the courts.
In addition to his paid job for the United pilots he also consulted for the American pilots.
His posts on this forum urging the AA pilots to cave in to management's initial demands during their 1113 bankruptcy hearings were way over the top. He wanted them to give up their pensions and work rules and agree to everything management wanted. Thankfully they ignored his advice and held out. They ended up with a much better deal. Not even the bankruptcy judge was willing to impose the draconian stuff that Harwood told the AA pilots they should accept.
The biggest problem I have with him is his clear bias toward and deference to management, the NMB and the courts.
In addition to his paid job for the United pilots he also consulted for the American pilots.
His posts on this forum urging the AA pilots to cave in to management's initial demands during their 1113 bankruptcy hearings were way over the top. He wanted them to give up their pensions and work rules and agree to everything management wanted. Thankfully they ignored his advice and held out. They ended up with a much better deal. Not even the bankruptcy judge was willing to impose the draconian stuff that Harwood told the AA pilots they should accept.
Carl
05-23-2015 | 07:53 AM
#4708
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 2
From: Capt
Withholding trips from being awarded to FO's cannot be allowed to pass under any circumstance.
Think about it, you could be #1 in your category and not get any trip you bid. It'd be like playing poker with 45 cards in the deck and they don't tell you which 7 are missing.
Think about it, you could be #1 in your category and not get any trip you bid. It'd be like playing poker with 45 cards in the deck and they don't tell you which 7 are missing.
05-23-2015 | 07:54 AM
#4709
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 5
From: Captain
As C2015 continues to evolve, it is interesting to think about the comparison to 2012. Certainly we are in a much better environment and expectations are high. The MEC by their own admission, are in a better place than 2012 with regards to the info being provided to them from the negotiators and their ability to redirect. This may be somewhat of a double edged sword when it comes to a TA.. Why?
In 2012, the MEC (except for a few insiders) were kept mostly in the dark until 4833 (among other things) were sprung on them at the MEC meeting. Yes, there had been rumors and some members had actually reached out to the powers that be in attempt to at least provide a general overview of the situation (to the MEC) as it related to section 3 so the MEC could at least "own" the product. This did not happen.
Now, fast forward to 2015. The MEC seems to be in the loop and when and if a TA comes back, the reasoning for voting "yes" on a lesser product is much different because their involvement along the way compared to 2012. Certainly a few of the former regulars who are now involved and voted "no" to 2012, will have to "own" their "yes" vote and cant suggest that it was somehow outside their direction as reasoning. (Unless of course they get something sprung on them again)
I have no idea on the validity of the rumors that propagate here and on the other forum, but at this point I have to admit I am deeply concerned where this path may be leading. There is always compromise in any negotiation and there is always an equal and opposite reaction on contractual changes. Fixing something for one pilot often upsets another, so just because I may be unhappy about a "fix" doesn't mean that you won't be happy..... But, the good is going to have to STRONGLY outweigh the things I don't like in this TA (besides cash)... My confidence level ain't high right now.. I guess time will tell.
In 2012, the MEC (except for a few insiders) were kept mostly in the dark until 4833 (among other things) were sprung on them at the MEC meeting. Yes, there had been rumors and some members had actually reached out to the powers that be in attempt to at least provide a general overview of the situation (to the MEC) as it related to section 3 so the MEC could at least "own" the product. This did not happen.
Now, fast forward to 2015. The MEC seems to be in the loop and when and if a TA comes back, the reasoning for voting "yes" on a lesser product is much different because their involvement along the way compared to 2012. Certainly a few of the former regulars who are now involved and voted "no" to 2012, will have to "own" their "yes" vote and cant suggest that it was somehow outside their direction as reasoning. (Unless of course they get something sprung on them again)
I have no idea on the validity of the rumors that propagate here and on the other forum, but at this point I have to admit I am deeply concerned where this path may be leading. There is always compromise in any negotiation and there is always an equal and opposite reaction on contractual changes. Fixing something for one pilot often upsets another, so just because I may be unhappy about a "fix" doesn't mean that you won't be happy..... But, the good is going to have to STRONGLY outweigh the things I don't like in this TA (besides cash)... My confidence level ain't high right now.. I guess time will tell.
05-23-2015 | 08:02 AM
#4710
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Harwood is undeniably a smart guy but he should be kept far far away from anything having to do with direct negotiations. If our MEC is listening to him on bargaining strategy or estimates of our bargaining power then we are in deep trouble.
The biggest problem I have with him is his clear bias toward and deference to management, the NMB and the courts.
In addition to his paid job for the United pilots he also consulted for the American pilots.
His posts on this forum urging the AA pilots to cave in to management's initial demands during their 1113 bankruptcy hearings were way over the top. He wanted them to give up their pensions and work rules and agree to everything management wanted. Thankfully they ignored his advice and held out. They ended up with a much better deal. Not even the bankruptcy judge was willing to impose the draconian stuff that Harwood told the AA pilots they should accept.
The biggest problem I have with him is his clear bias toward and deference to management, the NMB and the courts.
In addition to his paid job for the United pilots he also consulted for the American pilots.
His posts on this forum urging the AA pilots to cave in to management's initial demands during their 1113 bankruptcy hearings were way over the top. He wanted them to give up their pensions and work rules and agree to everything management wanted. Thankfully they ignored his advice and held out. They ended up with a much better deal. Not even the bankruptcy judge was willing to impose the draconian stuff that Harwood told the AA pilots they should accept.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/am...ml#post1247722
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
