|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1890531)
Here's a question dovetailing on someone's post a few weeks ago. Would you bring the EMB-195 to mainline if, and only if, you allow the 325 jumbo RJ limit to increase and more 50 seaters to be parked?
Say 375 jumbo RJs for mainline E-195s? |
Originally Posted by pilotstats
(Post 1890937)
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. But something like that wouldn't generate any significant level of contention anyway. The cost is relatively low (unless we're talking about fll reimbursement for walk up Yellow Cabs, and even then its still not that expensive for the company in the grand scheme of things. We're about to see a TA with numerous layered and embedded concessions, some of them deep. It will obviously contain a pay raise, probably aprtially paid for with concessions, and will probably contain a few QOL increases to help offset some of the negatives. TVM and speed will be used to push it as not only a win, but the only alternative to the NC quitting and the NMB chewing us up for 3-5+ years, maybe forever. IOW fear. We can't afford not to take these concessions. :rolleyes: I would hope that any rep, in any base, would be against all but the most minor and borderline meaningless concessions in an economic environment such as this, but it appears that ship has sailed, at least for the initial TA. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1891047)
Clamp is right on this. It's the majority of LEC reps that are refusing to accept what the negotiating committee (at the direction of certain MEC administrators) are trying to cram down.
I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats. In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control. Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Carl |
Originally Posted by 300SMK
(Post 1891119)
DN is smart and a class act.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1891203)
This doesn't pass the smell test. Cab fares to EWR are 100% fair because even considering EWR part of a "New York City base" is laughable and a huge longstanding concession to the company already. Many current and former pilots living in MSP know this very well, as do pilots from every base.
But something like that wouldn't generate any significant level of contention anyway. The cost is relatively low (unless we're talking about fll reimbursement for walk up Yellow Cabs, and even then its still not that expensive for the company in the grand scheme of things. We're about to see a TA with numerous layered and embedded concessions, some of them deep. It will obviously contain a pay raise, probably aprtially paid for with concessions, and will probably contain a few QOL increases to help offset some of the negatives. TVM and speed will be used to push it as not only a win, but the only alternative to the NC quitting and the NMB chewing us up for 3-5+ years, maybe forever. IOW fear. We can't afford not to take these concessions. :rolleyes: I would hope that any rep, in any base, would be against all but the most minor and borderline meaningless concessions in an economic environment such as this, but it appears that ship has sailed, at least for the initial TA. A group of long time insiders on the MEC administration trying to direct the negotiations instead of our elected reps. |
Why wait?
There is no reason to wait, they won't give us anymore anyway. They have other commitments already.
6 billion in shareholder returns in 3 years = 2B/yr 1 billion in pension funding ahead of schedule = 1B/yr 3.5 billion in debt reduction = 1.2B/yr All of C2k cost 2.4billion = 600M/yr *Note B's are 1000 x M's If we settle now we will be in a prime position to capitalize on 2020! But if we don't... We only get 757 averaging bumps every time employees get a raise and 3 months salary minimum in profit sharing. Now projected to 2014 profit plus 1.1 billion with the whisper number as high as 7.5 billion. 2014 was 4.5B. They are running out of things to spend the record industry profits on. 4/8/3/3 then really get them in 2020. Please challenge these numbers! The PDF to back it up is on my surface. (and yours too) |
Discuss
C20/DTW Special Special Update
May 29th, 2015 Special MEC Meeting Another Special MEC Meeting will be held in Atlanta, starting on June 2nd, 2015. The only agenda item is an update from the Negotiating Committee. We anticipate that most, if not all, of the meeting well be held in closed session. The Previous Special Meeting During (and since) the conclusion of the last regular MEC meeting (May 4-7), several MEC Representatives expressed varying levels of dissatisfaction with the MEC’s level of engagement with and knowledge of the status of negotiations. This dissatisfaction was expressed to the MEC Administration. Several Representatives were in the process of calling for a special meeting (per the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws) when the MEC Chairman elected to call for a special meeting in Atlanta on May 19th and 20th. We certainly appreciate the MEC CH making this decision. To ensure that our concerns, as well as the concerns of other Representatives were addressed, 11 Status Representatives (including Bill and Rich) elected to call for a Special Meeting in addition to that called by the MEC Chairman (two Secretary/Treasurers, including Tom, also signed the letter requesting the meeting). This was done to ensure that items of specific concern were placed on the agenda. Since the agenda, which was subsequently published for the meeting, included these items, the MEC Administration stated that an additional meeting was not necessary. The goals for the special meeting: “Attempt” to ensure that the direction given to the Negotiators and the MEC Administration is still a priority and is still in line with your expectations. Make sure we get Contract 2015 right, and accomplished on a proper timeline that does not sacrifice quality for expediency. Negotiations Update The MEC was comprehensively briefed on the status of ALPA’s issues from the ALPA Opener as well as updated about the negotiations relative to the Company issues, which had been the primary area of discussion at the MEC meetings since the Openers were exchanged. The Negotiating Committee briefed the MEC that (as of last week’s meeting) there had not been any discussions with the Company about the “value” items (pay rates, profit sharing, DPSP contributions, overrides, etc.). Obviously we will get an update at next week’s Special Meeting. MEC Priorities and Direction We had your priorities aggregated from multiple sources, including last year’s survey Most of us (the pilot group) had our own personal lists of priorities for C2015. We (the C20 Reps) have certainly tried to keep as many items in the final agreement as possible, as well as adapt to and address proposals that were not conclusively covered by the survey or other sources. Although we are confident that all the members of the MEC pressed for priorities which they / we believed best represented their / our constituencies, both locally and aggregately, significantly different “worldviews”, beliefs about representation, MEC responsibilities and governance, and the amount of latitude that should be afforded to the Negotiating Committee and MEC Administration, led individual members of the MEC to sometimes give substantially differing negotiating direction. Further complicating the exercise is the component that the Negotiating Committee itself, having debated and discussed all of these issues amongst themselves, have opinions about the best courses of action, which may differ from the MEC member opinions. We can only conclude that the representatives are representative of the memberships who elected them. Sometimes we (the C20 reps) were in the majority, sometimes we were not, throughout the full range of more to less significant issues. Many of the key non-“value package” items still have details to be finalized. How acceptable or unacceptable some of items individually are will have to ultimately be judged in the context of the overall deal. We believe that the greater the prevalence of any objectionable parameters certainly raises the requirements in other areas. Our goal from the start was to work very hard to help craft a deal that we could ultimately support rather than being satisfied with just voting against one that is rushed and unacceptable…...or just unacceptable. Rumor Control Significant caution is suggested when considering rumors regarding the status of negotiations. While occasionally providing a certain level of amusement to some, rumors range from wildly inaccurate to items that accidently have some correct parameters, but remain disconnected from reality due to the lack of context and overall specifics. Many key details still remain to be decided. Pilots are pretty good at picking out bits and pieces of information from multiple sources and integrating them together to maintain situational awareness. That’s what we do. We do this with rumors as well, even if sub-consciously. A tidbit here, a tidbit there, and add in some “confirmation bias”, and pretty soon you have a fully blown “ALPA already agreed to it, it’s a sure thing” kind of rumor. Finally, consider one of the psychological factors that can come into play. Let’s say you see a particularly bad rumor…maybe it was for some really unsatisfactory pay rates, some kind of unforgivable concession, or whatever. But then the actual Tentative Agreement appears that includes something similar…just not to the negative level included the rumor, or as significant in the context of the overall agreement. You may find yourself saying “well, that isn’t so bad”. You may have been pre-conditioned by the really bad rumor into considering something that was still not all that great...just not as bad as what you had heard. Don’t fall prey to “negotiating with yourself” or getting so invested in any particular rumor and go “all-in” disputing or supporting it, only to have to say “never mind” once all the details are determined and published. A final word about the Internet…be sure of your source. That person giving you contract advice may be a 13 year-old in his parents’ basement in Amarillo. “The Process” As we mentioned in our last update, some of the MEC felt there were “process issues”. Other MEC members stated in their Council updates that there were no process problems. The difference in perspective is related to defining “the process” (which generally has no official definition) narrowly by solely referencing the “Negotiation Procedures” as outlined in the Delta MEC Policy Manual, Section 9.A.1 (shown below), or by defining it more broadly to include the general manner in which negotiations are being conducted and the MEC’s ongoing involvement in direction and re-direction. “9.A. Negotiation Procedures 1. When change to the PWA is contemplated, the following policy will be followed before commencing bilateral negotiations: a. The MEC chairman will use appropriate resources to gather all available background information. b. Background material will be forwarded to the MEC. c. If deemed necessary, an MEC meeting will be called for the purpose of review and direction by the MEC. d. If the MEC gives direction for negotiations to proceed and a tentative agreement (TA) is reached, it will be brought back to the MEC for review and further action by the MEC.” This policy is very general…as it should be; there are a range of circumstances that could affect the Pilot Working Agreement, such as Letters of Agreements on minor issues, larger changes such as LOA 14-01 (FAR 117), and full Railway Labor Act (RLA) Section 6 negotiations. However, since it is so general, there is an abundance of “wiggle room” in how things are done, and that latitude frequently gets defined by a majority vote of the MEC. Our differences of perspective shouldn’t make a difference, right? Again, even though each person believes that their goals are “in the best interests of the group”, even defining what those interests are can be a tough debate. The actual direction process can be subject to considerable give and take. Items can be presented, re-presented, re-worked, and presented yet again to the MEC to give direction on, even though direction had previously been given. This can turn into a contentious interaction where concepts like “no means no” faces off against “this really is something that needs to be done”. This dynamic is not limited to Delta ALPA, nor ALPA in general, but can occur in any collective bargaining situation. As we mentioned in a previous update, direction to the Negotiating Committee may be firm or conditional, depending on the subject. Some issues may be worth exploring by providing some flexibility, while others are more likely to need definite requirements. There are many moving pieces and components that go into an entire package. And again, these value judgments can differ amongst MEC members. There is one school of thought that anything developed that meets the sometimes broad & vague direction should be approved by the MEC (which could certainly put the necessity of MEC approval itself into question). The other school of thought, (the one to which we subscribe), is that you really can’t realistically evaluate the individual pieces without considering the package as a whole (barring individual non-starters and “deal killers”…some lines you just don’t cross). Just because a deal met individual minimum sub-goals, doesn't necessarily mean the entire package is acceptable. Like Systems Validations, each module must meet a minimum, as well as the entire test collectively. So while the “process” may be technically within the loose guidance of the Policy Manual, it does not necessarily mean that all of the MEC is comfortable with the manner in which the MEC was included or regarded throughout the overall effort or even just relative to individual items. While we certainly appreciate the hard work that goes into an effort such as this, it’s the final result that counts. Summary Negotiations with the Company and the Negotiating Committee are proceeding. It appears from our viewpoint that there is some factor driving the pace of negotiations, but we are unsure about what that factor might be. A Tentative Agreement (TA) may be possible in the near future. Maybe. As many of you are no doubt aware, the Company announced a significant stock re-purchase program and increased dividends as parts of their “capital deployment strategy”. These programs show the strength of Delta Air Lines which is, in no small part, a result of the sacrifices that this pilot group has made over the past several years, helping Delta to regain its preeminent competitive position in the industry. It also tells us what every Delta Pilot already knew: the Company has ample resources to deliver the contract we expect and deserve. We continue to experience very high pilot input to the process. Please keep the cards and letters coming. We will continue to make every effort to reach the “historical” agreement referred to by our leadership at the outset of the negotiations process. “If not now, when?” Fraternally, Bill, Rich, and Tom Captain Bill Bartels LEC Chairman/ Capt. Rep [email protected] (734) 834-5634 Rich Wheeler LEC Vice Chairman/ F/O Rep [email protected] (954) 494-5086 Captain Tom Bell Secretary-Treasurer [email protected] (414) 732-8197 Contract and Scheduling questions may also be directed to: Captain Steve Drew: [email protected]; (210)859-0638 Dave Rogers: [email protected]; (812)431-0387 Heiko Kallenbach: [email protected]; (352) 212-4289 The Pilot Assistance Network (PAN), for pilots seeking physiological, psychological and/or medical assistance, can be reached at 1-800-USA-ALPA (1-800-872-2572). If calling after business hours or on the weekend press 7. The Council 20 Representatives are committed to protecting your jobs, your future and repairing this industry for ALL Delta Pilots. # # # |
Originally Posted by Raging white
(Post 1891175)
"Bluffing"? This isn't the Cuban Missile crisis.
"Our pilots will agree to a contract with these changes that they listed in this survey that I'm showing you". If the company doesn't agree, we'll just have to keep cashing PS checks. I know that's oversimplified, but in this particular environment, it's easy. When there's no rush, it really should be easy. You only make it hard by injecting a fake urgency. If a "new" PWA tallies at $1 BILLION a year in increased pilot costs(including any gives) against the PTIX, we would get all $1 billion. This is a BIG number. By "cashing the PS" check we get 1/3 of 20% of that 1B. That's about $83 Million. This is a SMALL number. I prefer a BIG number over a SMALL number. Don't you? (It still needs to be the right deal in QOL, not just "a" deal.) Getting the "right deal" still requires a unified face from the MEC wether it's expedited or protracted negotiations. It reduces our leverage when the Company can see division and use those wedges against us. That makes the top number smaller and keeps us at the lower number longer... No; no fake urgency. I agree we will "keep cashing the PS", and I look forward to that continuing. I want more(a lot more), and I want it yesterday. I don't like when people undermine the effort to do that. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1891160)
The MEC can and should fight and argue behind closed doors, but when it comes to looking outward they should stand together.
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1891160)
Showing a divided face and/or airing of grievances does NOTHING to negotiate us a new PWA that commensurate with the improved condition of our employer.
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1891160)
When the MEC doesn't keep its "poker face" to the public, the other side gains insight into what cards we are holding and whether or not we are bluffing. That isn't good for anyone Delta Pilot who wants more money and more time off.
This is the best possible thing for Delta pilots. Carl |
Check out the PDF, its a PowerPoint intended for investors. It may take a little bit of Google research on investopedia.com but spend sometime with it and it will enlighten.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. - Delta Announces Plan to Return over $6 Billion to Shareholders Through 2017 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands