Details on Delta TA
05-24-2015 | 07:59 PM
#4791
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
Well you are contradicting yourself now.
You are saying delta MEC comm is too vague. But agreeing that the rules are there for a reason. And now tack to a straw man, distrust argument.
Let us move somewhere more substantial. Perhaps to this: the angry birds on here are what 10-20 dudes? Out of how many? 12228? Approximately?
Let us allow that perhaps, just perhaps, the arguments for and against either and or are polarized and tinted by this small vocal minority's online. And (my theory) their inability to get laid (gender neutral sexual frustration for our lady angry pilots out there). And that inability may manifest itself elsewhere. Just a theory.
Now. Having established a few people are less than happy with the world and take it out in this forum, let us more forward into agreeing that things are the way they are because of things we all agree to. Rules. Voting. All that jazz.
The ability to participate and be counted in this process is not being ripped from anyone. The ability to affect a process (supposedly secret) in motion still lies with you and has not been abrogated
Anger and faux victims rage debases the whole process and speaks poorly of men and women who are otherwise Kings and Queens of the Air. Lest we forget we all have a hand in our destiny here.
And since 2006...every single year has brought more money. Betterish work rules and more-Ish jobs. To argue differently is to prove you may very well be in my group of 20 who reaaaaaallly really need to get laid (again, gender neutral lay-ing).
You are saying delta MEC comm is too vague. But agreeing that the rules are there for a reason. And now tack to a straw man, distrust argument.
Let us move somewhere more substantial. Perhaps to this: the angry birds on here are what 10-20 dudes? Out of how many? 12228? Approximately?
Let us allow that perhaps, just perhaps, the arguments for and against either and or are polarized and tinted by this small vocal minority's online. And (my theory) their inability to get laid (gender neutral sexual frustration for our lady angry pilots out there). And that inability may manifest itself elsewhere. Just a theory.
Now. Having established a few people are less than happy with the world and take it out in this forum, let us more forward into agreeing that things are the way they are because of things we all agree to. Rules. Voting. All that jazz.
The ability to participate and be counted in this process is not being ripped from anyone. The ability to affect a process (supposedly secret) in motion still lies with you and has not been abrogated
Anger and faux victims rage debases the whole process and speaks poorly of men and women who are otherwise Kings and Queens of the Air. Lest we forget we all have a hand in our destiny here.
And since 2006...every single year has brought more money. Betterish work rules and more-Ish jobs. To argue differently is to prove you may very well be in my group of 20 who reaaaaaallly really need to get laid (again, gender neutral lay-ing).
I missed the part where your hypothesis went from a "theory" to being "established."
Scoop
05-25-2015 | 01:44 AM
#4796
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,146
Likes: 112
You may prefer to have such a simplified metric, but I'd prefer a metric that includes my employer's current and potential profitability. American's contract was a gross undershoot (and they are swimming in debt) - I don't wish to set my personal goals based on "leading" beyond that. Rates equivalent to restoration (without work rule give-backs) are reasonable and fair given the current environment and 3-year outlook; Delta conceded as much when they announced the $5,000,000,000 buy-back. I don't believe restoration rates are sustainable forever, but of course we aren't negotiating a "forever" contract.
I don't support the ways in which many of the ranters present their arguments...it obviously turns a lot of people (perhaps most) off. But the fiscal arguments behind them are valid and should not be ignored.
If I were Delta management, I'd actually want what you seem to want...and that makes me nervous.
RA: "Men, how low can we go and still pass this TA pronto?"
Minions: "If you give them something barely industry-leading, it will pass quickly and we'll still be able to claim exceptional relations with our pilot group. Fortunately, the industry standard is still so low that it won't cost much to make that happen."
RA: "Perfect! Make it so. And when that's done, we'll have to figure out what the heck to do with all this cash laying around. You wanna toss an extra $2.5 back to Wall Street and see what it does to our stock price?"
Minions: "Genius! Let's do it! $7.5B over 3 years to Wall Street would be a far better investment than the $600,000 average per pilot equivalent over the same time. As Parker noted, pilots really don't have anything to do with the profitability of an airline anyway - but don't tell them we said that, haha!"
I don't support the ways in which many of the ranters present their arguments...it obviously turns a lot of people (perhaps most) off. But the fiscal arguments behind them are valid and should not be ignored.
If I were Delta management, I'd actually want what you seem to want...and that makes me nervous.
RA: "Men, how low can we go and still pass this TA pronto?"
Minions: "If you give them something barely industry-leading, it will pass quickly and we'll still be able to claim exceptional relations with our pilot group. Fortunately, the industry standard is still so low that it won't cost much to make that happen."
RA: "Perfect! Make it so. And when that's done, we'll have to figure out what the heck to do with all this cash laying around. You wanna toss an extra $2.5 back to Wall Street and see what it does to our stock price?"
Minions: "Genius! Let's do it! $7.5B over 3 years to Wall Street would be a far better investment than the $600,000 average per pilot equivalent over the same time. As Parker noted, pilots really don't have anything to do with the profitability of an airline anyway - but don't tell them we said that, haha!"
05-25-2015 | 04:15 AM
#4797
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
For all those screaming 'restoration!!!' Like a crazed lunatic. Does anyone remember WHY that contract had those rates?
So which do we want. A contract that leads most of the industry? Or a contract that leads the industry AND gives back all the scope that was surrendered in C2K????
Restoration is an empty and fallacious rallying cry. And it needs to be dropped.
We need industry leading rates and work rules. Period.
And we need to wait until the TA(if we get one) is finished.
So which do we want. A contract that leads most of the industry? Or a contract that leads the industry AND gives back all the scope that was surrendered in C2K????
Restoration is an empty and fallacious rallying cry. And it needs to be dropped.
We need industry leading rates and work rules. Period.
And we need to wait until the TA(if we get one) is finished.
05-25-2015 | 04:26 AM
#4798
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
The Delta pilot group has NEVER voted down a T/A. By the time a T/A comes out of the MEC, it's over. Just like in 2012. THAT is why so many guys are getting riled up now, they have learned. Why haven't you? Or perhaps you were one of the ones involve selling us the two 3% raises we'd never see?
First off. Sorry you are angry. That's sucks.
Second. Read my other posts about process. If you want the way this is done to change you have to change it at the DALPA level. Complaining like this is like yelling at God because he let it rain at your kids quinceañera (or insert ethnically appropriate right of passage here).
You can get riled up. That's cool. But it's not very productive. And doesn't stop the rain.
05-25-2015 | 04:35 AM
#4799
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
First off. Sorry you are angry. That's sucks.
Second. Read my other posts about process. If you want the way this is done to change you have to change it at the DALPA level. Complaining like this is like yelling at God because he let it rain at your kids quinceañera (or insert ethnically appropriate right of passage here).
You can get riled up. That's cool. But it's not very productive. And doesn't stop the rain.
Second. Read my other posts about process. If you want the way this is done to change you have to change it at the DALPA level. Complaining like this is like yelling at God because he let it rain at your kids quinceañera (or insert ethnically appropriate right of passage here).
You can get riled up. That's cool. But it's not very productive. And doesn't stop the rain.
What was that?
Straight up BS, that's what.
Why the rush this time? Who's timeline are we on?
Oh, that's right King Richard said we have to hurry and he said he's got a manning problem, we'd better give more concessions, maybe we can trade more of our profit sharing for another 3% raise too!
05-25-2015 | 04:35 AM
#4800
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 1
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
I think it's pretty clear now why the company paid out ~half of the PS several months early last year.
They were prepping the battlefield, and wanted to remove the psychological boost of one large profit sharing check immediately prior to Section 6 openers. They were trying to acclimate us to getting less on Feb 14.
Sambo nailed it. PS completely negates the "TVM" of another rushed deal.
Let's wind the clock.
They were prepping the battlefield, and wanted to remove the psychological boost of one large profit sharing check immediately prior to Section 6 openers. They were trying to acclimate us to getting less on Feb 14.
Sambo nailed it. PS completely negates the "TVM" of another rushed deal.
Let's wind the clock.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
