Details on Delta TA
05-28-2015, 07:12 PM
#5001
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by pilotstats
Post of the day.
Scenario: The MSP representatives are upset that reps in bases with co-terminal airports desire paid cab fare for pilots when rotations originate at the "less desirable" airports (i.e. EWR). The MSP reps feel that the MEC should seek gains for ALL Delta Pilots and not be subject to direction that is pure pork-barrel. However, the "cab fare seeking reps" have promised support to other bases who have parochial issues, and therefore gained a majority for their purposes.
In this instance, MSP reps have a right to be upset. They do not have the right to blame the NC; the NC takes its instruction from the MEC as a whole, and are bound to follow that majority position. What they do not have the right to do is air dirty laundry to everyone and undercut the unified voice of us to management. That hurts us all and takes money out of your future paychecks.
What C1 wrote and published was petulant, childish, destructive, and does not contribute to a positive outcome for Delta Pilots. This is a sad day for ALPA when it's 1st Local behaves like this. Not the kind of history they will want to be known for; history aside I hope the damage to our collective checking accounts can be mitigated.
Scenario: The MSP representatives are upset that reps in bases with co-terminal airports desire paid cab fare for pilots when rotations originate at the "less desirable" airports (i.e. EWR). The MSP reps feel that the MEC should seek gains for ALL Delta Pilots and not be subject to direction that is pure pork-barrel. However, the "cab fare seeking reps" have promised support to other bases who have parochial issues, and therefore gained a majority for their purposes.
In this instance, MSP reps have a right to be upset. They do not have the right to blame the NC; the NC takes its instruction from the MEC as a whole, and are bound to follow that majority position. What they do not have the right to do is air dirty laundry to everyone and undercut the unified voice of us to management. That hurts us all and takes money out of your future paychecks.
What C1 wrote and published was petulant, childish, destructive, and does not contribute to a positive outcome for Delta Pilots. This is a sad day for ALPA when it's 1st Local behaves like this. Not the kind of history they will want to be known for; history aside I hope the damage to our collective checking accounts can be mitigated.
05-28-2015, 07:13 PM
#5002
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by Chuck Essential
I didn’t realize that Butt Head (you do know of his past behavior of head butting the MEC VC in MSP, don’t you?) was back on the MEC. And now Beavis, his FO rep, have decided to skewer the negotiators prior to even reaching an agreement. Carrying on the Council 1 tradition from 2012 of just saying NO to everything and likely carrying out the politics of personal attacks orchestrated by Detroit and their CVG FO lapdog.
These morons are costing every Delta pilot money.
These morons are costing every Delta pilot money.
05-28-2015, 07:15 PM
#5003
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by Bananie
Mostly the C1 reps sound like self-centered egotists. "Don't worry we will protect you from all evil, we are righteous and almighty". Can they bend steel with their bare hands? Sigh.
05-28-2015, 07:26 PM
#5004
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by Professor
I have read it. About ten times.
Again. As schoolhouse rock told me, majority rules. Albeit painful, one or two councils out of eight don't get to dictate direction for the ENTIRE pilot group.
Would we want? I mean really dude?
Again. As schoolhouse rock told me, majority rules. Albeit painful, one or two councils out of eight don't get to dictate direction for the ENTIRE pilot group.
Would we want? I mean really dude?
So how do you how where the other councils fall out on this issue? Since you seem to know, please share with the group.
Scoop
05-28-2015, 07:41 PM
#5005
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Scoop
So how do you how where the other councils fall out on this issue? Since you seem to know, please share with the group.
Scoop
Scoop
This passive aggressive stunt only highlights their dissatisfaction as LEC reps. But because they are willing to say some things, but not what they mean...its starts fires burning all over the place.
And passive aggressive is precisely what this is. And how well does any individual or group respond to that kind of behavior?
What I do know is that by taking this outside the confines of discussions with their LEC colleagues they have created tangential problems I am sure they didn't consider.
Let us start with collegiality. How are other councils going to view these individuals airing the dirty laundry of the group? Do they really think that a move like this will endear them to other councils when those councils are playing by the rules? Do they think that will win them votes NOW from other LEC's?
The other thing they didn't consider is the company opening a section once closed because these LEC reps mentioned it. Why? Because they know that if they press to test on sick leave, they can gain back something else over 'here' they didn't want to give and then be back at zero sum on sick leave again.
Please, everyone reading this, think about what it is like to be on both sides of that table. It's only in having some empathy for the plight and struggle that both sides go through in negotiations that can you gain insight into why any mention of satisfaction or dissatisfaction becomes a bargaining chip for the mgmt side.
Yes, I know that the company generally knows what we want. But in active negotiations when a group ADVISING the negotiators for us publicly points out a few very specific things, this is dangerous and just plain old stupid.
I said it once, I will say it before...its bush league. I expect more from pilots at this airline elected to represent people. This move smacks more of ego than it does anything else.
To me, it looks like a pre-emptive move for them to distance themselves from a contract they don't think MSP will like and help keep them in office. Why else would they go wide? Do they really think that this would help push their point with the MEC?
I'm still flabbergasted that any LEC would publish this pre-TA.
05-28-2015, 07:49 PM
#5006
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by pilotstats
Post of the day.
Scenario: The MSP representatives are upset that reps in bases with co-terminal airports desire paid cab fare for pilots when rotations originate at the "less desirable" airports (i.e. EWR). The MSP reps feel that the MEC should seek gains for ALL Delta Pilots and not be subject to direction that is pure pork-barrel. However, the "cab fare seeking reps" have promised support to other bases who have parochial issues, and therefore gained a majority for their purposes.
In this instance, MSP reps have a right to be upset. They do not have the right to blame the NC; the NC takes its instruction from the MEC as a whole, and are bound to follow that majority position. What they do not have the right to do is air dirty laundry to everyone and undercut the unified voice of us to management. That hurts us all and takes money out of your future paychecks.
What C1 wrote and published was petulant, childish, destructive, and does not contribute to a positive outcome for Delta Pilots. This is a sad day for ALPA when it's 1st Local behaves like this. Not the kind of history they will want to be known for; history aside I hope the damage to our collective checking accounts can be mitigated.
Scenario: The MSP representatives are upset that reps in bases with co-terminal airports desire paid cab fare for pilots when rotations originate at the "less desirable" airports (i.e. EWR). The MSP reps feel that the MEC should seek gains for ALL Delta Pilots and not be subject to direction that is pure pork-barrel. However, the "cab fare seeking reps" have promised support to other bases who have parochial issues, and therefore gained a majority for their purposes.
In this instance, MSP reps have a right to be upset. They do not have the right to blame the NC; the NC takes its instruction from the MEC as a whole, and are bound to follow that majority position. What they do not have the right to do is air dirty laundry to everyone and undercut the unified voice of us to management. That hurts us all and takes money out of your future paychecks.
What C1 wrote and published was petulant, childish, destructive, and does not contribute to a positive outcome for Delta Pilots. This is a sad day for ALPA when it's 1st Local behaves like this. Not the kind of history they will want to be known for; history aside I hope the damage to our collective checking accounts can be mitigated.
Somehow that is acceptable to the kook aid club here on posters anonymous.
Hopefully the courage displayed by Council 1 will be the beginning of the end for Richard's lap dogs.
05-28-2015, 07:56 PM
#5007
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by gzsg
Once again a handful of King's recall arrogant and ignorant ego maniacs are trying to bypass the MEC like they did for C2012.
Somehow that is acceptable to the kook aid club here on posters anonymous.
Hopefully the courage displayed by Council 1 will be the beginning of the end for Richard's lap dogs.
Somehow that is acceptable to the kook aid club here on posters anonymous.
Hopefully the courage displayed by Council 1 will be the beginning of the end for Richard's lap dogs.
A) not utilize useless slander and hyperbole.
B) use verifiable facts to prove your 'points'
3) construct a single logical argument.
Look, its ok to be mad. It is also to be worried that we are going to get screwed. Are we going to? Dunno. Maybe?
Maybe do it like this:
GZSG
I think that Council 1 was simply voicing their frustration. With the bad blood from the SLI combined with some more local issues, this is understandable coming from MSP.
Some posters on here, to me, seem to be too much on the side of the company. But that is just my opinion. I can't prove it. And maybe they really are just trying to keep everyone calm and rational while our elected reps get a TA hammered out. But I still think they are lapdogs.
sincerely,
George.
-----
See? Like that.
05-28-2015, 07:56 PM
#5008
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 5-9 block, kill removing
Posts: 385
Originally Posted by Professor
I don't know anything. That is the point. Why? Because they aren't sharing their take on internal machinations with the pilot body-at-large. THAT is their job right now. They could be in lock step with council one. Who knows? I don't.
This passive aggressive stunt only highlights their dissatisfaction as LEC reps. But because they are willing to say some things, but not what they mean...its starts fires burning all over the place.
And passive aggressive is precisely what this is. And how well does any individual or group respond to that kind of behavior?
What I do know is that by taking this outside the confines of discussions with their LEC colleagues they have created tangential problems I am sure they didn't consider.
Let us start with collegiality. How are other councils going to view these individuals airing the dirty laundry of the group? Do they really think that a move like this will endear them to other councils when those councils are playing by the rules? Do they think that will win them votes NOW from other LEC's?
The other thing they didn't consider is the company opening a section once closed because these LEC reps mentioned it. Why? Because they know that if they press to test on sick leave, they can gain back something else over 'here' they didn't want to give and then be back at zero sum on sick leave again.
Please, everyone reading this, think about what it is like to be on both sides of that table. It's only in having some empathy for the plight and struggle that both sides go through in negotiations that can you gain insight into why any mention of satisfaction or dissatisfaction becomes a bargaining chip for the mgmt side.
Yes, I know that the company generally knows what we want. But in active negotiations when a group ADVISING the negotiators for us publicly points out a few very specific things, this is dangerous and just plain old stupid.
I said it once, I will say it before...its bush league. I expect more from pilots at this airline elected to represent people. This move smacks more of ego than it does anything else.
To me, it looks like a pre-emptive move for them to distance themselves from a contract they don't think MSP will like and help keep them in office. Why else would they go wide? Do they really think that this would help push their point with the MEC?
I'm still flabbergasted that any LEC would publish this pre-TA.
This passive aggressive stunt only highlights their dissatisfaction as LEC reps. But because they are willing to say some things, but not what they mean...its starts fires burning all over the place.
And passive aggressive is precisely what this is. And how well does any individual or group respond to that kind of behavior?
What I do know is that by taking this outside the confines of discussions with their LEC colleagues they have created tangential problems I am sure they didn't consider.
Let us start with collegiality. How are other councils going to view these individuals airing the dirty laundry of the group? Do they really think that a move like this will endear them to other councils when those councils are playing by the rules? Do they think that will win them votes NOW from other LEC's?
The other thing they didn't consider is the company opening a section once closed because these LEC reps mentioned it. Why? Because they know that if they press to test on sick leave, they can gain back something else over 'here' they didn't want to give and then be back at zero sum on sick leave again.
Please, everyone reading this, think about what it is like to be on both sides of that table. It's only in having some empathy for the plight and struggle that both sides go through in negotiations that can you gain insight into why any mention of satisfaction or dissatisfaction becomes a bargaining chip for the mgmt side.
Yes, I know that the company generally knows what we want. But in active negotiations when a group ADVISING the negotiators for us publicly points out a few very specific things, this is dangerous and just plain old stupid.
I said it once, I will say it before...its bush league. I expect more from pilots at this airline elected to represent people. This move smacks more of ego than it does anything else.
To me, it looks like a pre-emptive move for them to distance themselves from a contract they don't think MSP will like and help keep them in office. Why else would they go wide? Do they really think that this would help push their point with the MEC?
I'm still flabbergasted that any LEC would publish this pre-TA.
Save the BS that it will "tip our hand" to the company. I'm quite sure they know we want more money and less work.
05-28-2015, 07:56 PM
#5009
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Let's review C2012.
4,8,3,3 shocks the entire pilot group. Blindsided and disillusioned.
Then we self fund with an unauthorized reduction in profit sharing. So it is really 4,4,3,3.
Then inflation over the duration.
If that wasn't pathetic enough, we increase the ALV 2 hours and give away hundreds of jobs. We slow hiring and upgrades.
Wait, there's more. 99 hours for reserves. What kind of idiot agrees to that?
And then there is the the summer calendar. More jobs lost. Delayed hiring and slowed promotions.
And last but not least 70 more 76 seat jets for DCI.
How much revenue do 70 76 seat jets produce annually? 1 billion?
It wasn't cost neutral. We actually more than funded our PWA.
4,8,3,3 shocks the entire pilot group. Blindsided and disillusioned.
Then we self fund with an unauthorized reduction in profit sharing. So it is really 4,4,3,3.
Then inflation over the duration.
If that wasn't pathetic enough, we increase the ALV 2 hours and give away hundreds of jobs. We slow hiring and upgrades.
Wait, there's more. 99 hours for reserves. What kind of idiot agrees to that?
And then there is the the summer calendar. More jobs lost. Delayed hiring and slowed promotions.
And last but not least 70 more 76 seat jets for DCI.
How much revenue do 70 76 seat jets produce annually? 1 billion?
It wasn't cost neutral. We actually more than funded our PWA.
05-28-2015, 07:57 PM
#5010
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Raging white
Publish OUR own survey results and 99% of the distrust and acrimony disappears.
Save the BS that it will "tip our hand" to the company. I'm quite sure they know we want more money and less work.
Save the BS that it will "tip our hand" to the company. I'm quite sure they know we want more money and less work.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
