I'll say it again because it's what happened. The NC received direction from the MEC at the last special MEC meeting. They returned to the table with that direction and reached a TA. If something changed between the time they directed the NC and the TA, it was the NC reaching outside their direction or not accurately relaying what the current table position was. Either way a rogue NC.

Sorry that didn't happen. The MEC reps knew what was on the table. If this doesn't pass the MEC, enough changed their minds to swing the majority. I think some are having problems being leaders. It's easy to go one way or another, but when you have to stand in lounge and face the ramifications of your vote, some don't have the stomach for it.

My position is that IF during that special MEC meeting there was not a clear and STRONG consensus (more than a vote or two) in favor of a TA, the MEC should have not directed a TA. Way too much risk that someone would back out and scuttle the TA. The company will not tolerate a MEC that isn't credible. IF there was a clear consensus, then the TA will pass.

My guess is the MEC is likely split. At least council 1 and 20 seem to be in a different camp. I can't imagine buyers remorse sufficient to torpedo the TA if a super-majority signed off and gave the NC the green light.

 

I wouldn't have thought so until I heard consistent and disappointing rumors about the TA. I also believe Richard is smarter than they are.

And if you think internet banter and the voicing of a desire for my co-workers and reps to expect great things is panick mode...well, you might be high.

If this or the chit chat board fire a few people up and get them involved when they otherwise would not have been, that seems like success to me.

 

Do the homework and look at the numbers, then grasshopper, you will realize it's not irrelevant at all.

 

Fine. Don't use history solely. How about using some of it? You need to study this business. It ain't the military. I'll save you time though, but you'll have to trust me. I've been in this business for nearly 22 years and nobody has pulled off the trick yet. Bait and switch does not work.

 

You're selling fear. You want the pilots to believe we have to do what management demands or they will just stop negotiating and walk away for years and years.
Its not true and ALPA needs to stop saying it.

Management is watching. They will know exactly what happened.
The pilots contacted the reps and told them if the rumors are true then this TA is not acceptable.
If it gets voted down at the meeting the reason will be that simple.

Then the negotiations can resume. That's the "process".
You seem to be suggesting that a no vote is not an option. If that's the case then why are we even having this meeting?

 

I'll give you some bullet points, and you can draw your own conclusion. Pilots got 37% of the entire profit sharing pool, which (the entire pool) amounted to $1 billion or 25% of the entire profit the company made in 2014. THe shareholders, and institutional managers, who like it or not, OWN Delta Air Lines, probably do not like this. Management is in a corner. They need to reduce that number. Barring that, they need to placate those shareholders somehow, thus a share buyback and return of capital to those shareholders.

You can disagree with it if you want, and I really don't care, but it is probably a lot closer to reality than most anything I hear on here. If those shareholders don't feel some sort of satisfaction going forward, and that satisfaction must come in the form of profit for themselves, the will put their money elsewhere. The result of that will be lower CAPEX. You want that? It's not a threat, just business. Again, I don't care if you believe it or not, I am connecting obvious dots. No threats or capitulation or no expectation management. If you choose to make your stand because of their $5B payout, you are fighting a losing cause. It's just business.

Again, I'll wait and see what's in the TA before I get all gangsta. YMMV.

 

Fine. I really don't have a problem with that. Just realize that by sending any agreement back, AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO AGREE TO ONE ****ING THING, is self funding any payraise we would have had with that PS ya'll hold so sacred.

 

Read what I'm saying and not what you want me to be saying. We can negotiate until the cows come home. We don't have to accept anything they're offering. We can demand whatever we want and as long as we have the patience and intestinal fortitude we can endure.

What we cannot do and what will not be tolerated is to bait and switch. We cannot agree to something and then back out because we changed our minds. It destroys credibility.

Find me an example where that has worked. Just one.

 

I think this reads really well if you replace "shareholders" with "pilots". Imagine what we could achieve if management felt obligated to give pilots "some sort of satisfaction going forward".

What stock price penalty did we "pay" this year with the current PS in place? Why aren't shareholders who OWN delta smarter than the average bear, who knows that buybacks are usually a bad idea and often motivated by management's pursuit of self-enrichment?

 

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, I stop in and view the Delta threads now and then just for a laugh and maybe a chance at some side boob here and there. However, this thread is keeping my interest because I'm with the work group that has been previously mentioned as buried three years deep with an unyielding management team.

For clarification purposes, I have received no union notification that SWAPA has backed away from the negotiating table to wait and see how this plays out. Of course, there is absolutely no chance in he!! that SWAPA will wrap up negotiations prior to the Delta TA being voted up or down, so it really is a moot point but worth mentioning none the less.

I am curious, where do all the rumors floating around about TA specifics come from? Are they leaked by the MEC? Made up? Somewhere in between?

In previous TA run ups, is there always a similar amount of speculation and rumored specifics regarding the actual TA language? Looking in from the outside, I feel like a complete mushroom in comparison. SWAPA has been in negotiations forever and short of a few completely unsubstantiated rumors every now and again I feel completely in the dark. Of course SWAPA doesn't have a TA so maybe I've just forgotten what the few days prior to a vote is like since I'm reflecting back to 2009!

I feel like you folks are in an incredibly fantastic position with a TA forthcoming so quickly but I'm curious as to what is the perceived rush to end negotiations so quickly unless you have reached every perceivable goal for the work group? A TA reached this quick means at least both sides are in the ballpark as to an agreement which will reach ratification. I get the time/value of money argument but is the general consensus reach an agreement immediately or you won't see another for years even when you're this close?

Lastly, there seems to be an abundance of new posters with relatively small post counts all hard charging the union view that this deal should be taken immediately or the union will be parked indefinitely. Is this the norm? It seems that normally you guys have a relatively finite group that posts all the time and are somewhat known quantities as to where their loyalty lies. Is this influx of new union talking point supporters the norm? Do they come back every few years when an agreement in the works and then disappear until next time?

Good luck to you guys and gals, I truly hope you can achieve the very best contract possible for your members.