I kinda understand, although I think it's counterproductive. It's in the pilot DNA to require information and control when we're heading towards a destination. This is no different. When we don't have the big picture, or there is a lack of information (no ATIS, can't get ahold of dispatch, etc) we are hard-wired to default to the worst case scenario. It's exactly why we are so good at what we do at work, and exactly why we are soooo bad in situations like this where we are temporarily flying blind.

To overuse aviation analogies in one post, I view this part of the process like deadheading. If I didn't have confidence in the crew, I wouldn't have gotten on board. Now that we're airborne I have to endure a little turbulence and allow the crew to do their job.

When we land (assuming we made it to the right airport), I'll walk across the hall to the next gate and thoroughly go over the paperwork (TA) for the flight that I'm about to operate (vote on.)


Agreed

Gents, been a long time since I posted. Probably C2012. I have been saying for a long time that the co can't just come out with big flashy numbers like 15,10,8,8 (for hypothetical purposes only) without upsetting the other labor groups. Like it or not we do negotiate for the company. The other groups would look to unionize quick. They need to give us shadow raises that increase our W2 but aren't obvious to the avg employee. Avg daily guarantee, 401k (over the max comes back as pay) vacation etc. I'm giving the MEC the benefit of the doubt until I see it. The headline raise numbers could be deceiving. Full disclosure. My DPA card is current.

Should I read it before we have the MEC vote or after the blessing that has historically sealed it for us?

Section 6 TA was sent back? When again, I must have missed it.

And I don't remember seeing language or voting on CDOs either.

After.

Any deviation would foul the process that has been blasted in the past. The admin is being almost overly cautious (calling 9 MEC meetings this year so far) to ensure we abide by our own rules.

That's how our governance is currently set up. If we want to change that, we can do so, but that ship has sailed for this round. Not that long ago (early to mid 90's) there was no membership ratification at all for a section 6. Pilot input brought about change to involve us more in the process - a good thing.

I'm not against what you are suggesting, but it would have to be accomplished via our established procedures, ie resolution, member input, etc. Changing policy mid stream sets a bad precedent IMO. YMMV

The recall and DPA threats are quite juvenile. The only cause for recall in this process would be if a rep voted for or against in opposition of the constituency during ratification. That would demonstrate that the rep is out of touch with those he is representing. Curiously, councils 1 & 20 did not recall their reps who voted not to pass along the 2012 TA before their bases showed the highest percentage yes votes during the ratification. Recall is dumb and an empty threat.

Going over to the DPA is even dumber. That ship sailed and sunk a long time ago. Fact is the majority of Delta pilots see that outfit for what it is, a small group of misfits perpetuating outright lies, half truths, and illusion.

The same emotional unstable personas are here, as always, looking to spew and inform us all just how big a POS this TA really is. Of course they have nothing to go on, but why let that inconvenient truth get in the way of a their latest tantrum or good cry? My teenage daughter shows more emotional stability and poise.

I find it interesting that there hasn't been any substantial leaks this time from Councils 1 & 20. They tried to torpedo the 2012 TA during the MEC review. After finding themselves in the minority during the vote, they continued to campaign against membership ratification. As far as I know, neither council apologized to its members For being out of step with the consensus majority. Maybe both councils see this TA a little differently.

It is very clear that the MEC followed a different path than last time, as evidenced by the nearly continuous string of special MEC meetings. The MEC effectively made itself into the negotiating committee. I would say that tactic is fraught with risk, but it just might have worked this time. There won't be any surprises next week. The MEC saw this TA presented in conceptual form at the previous special MEC meeting. They debated and voted on whether to green light the negotiating team. Next week they will review the language.

I suspect the votes fell along the same and predictable lines, similar to last time. I view it as cultural thing. What remains to be seen is how vehement the NO crowd is this time. A lack of bombastic rhetoric from them actually will signal they are satisfied with the TA. This because I think culturally they find it distasteful to join the consensus. Far better to be viewed as bare knuckle bad *** unionists. Interestingly, the members of those councils see through the theatrics and vote accordingly. Further, they don't hold it against their reps. Just the way the sausage is made.

Typical comment born out of ignorance.



TP

Since you and others agree with my call for transparency I will continue to call for it.

The c2012 TA process stands as my example. I understand our current process and believe it's flawed. I hardly expect this will warrant a special MEC meeting to address. It will need to go through channels, that's the problem. Change doesn't happen overnight so I started a few days ago when the groups attention was focused.

The AJC is reporting that R.A. recently got a 22% pay increase. I'd be ok w/ 22/4/4/4, or thereabouts.

^^^^Agreed^^^^