If he's saying that, that's when he got his first flying job. What an odd dude in his long winded diatribes and prophetic remarks.

 

I just hope my math is right. I'll let him explain it.

 

The first ALPA guy I flew with was back in 2008 shortly after I was hired. I don't recall what his job was but I do remember him taking a lot of phone calls for ALPA work between legs. I thought he was a rep, but note sure--I was more concerned about making altitude restrictions that I honestly had little motivation than to think about anything other than what was right in front of me flying wise.

But I do distinctly remember him saying that he believed PS was better for us as pilots than pay rate increases. Now at the time we weren't doing too well in the profit making department and the 5 seconds of thought I gave his comment at 35,000' was not all that positive.

Now I'm not saying this fella represented the general ALPA mindset at the time (maybe others can share what the sense was of ALPA's position on PS was back around '06-'08 ), but did it seem our union wanted to keep PS back then instead of pushing for big rate increases? My captain's argument was that via PS we'd do better in good times and fixed rates would also be less threatened during bad times.

So now we're making good money with PS just like my ALPA-volunteer captain explained. Yet, it appears our union wants to trade it away. OK, I might be convinced--I can be bought. But like I said in my survey (which like a lot of others, appears to have been ignored), do that trade separate from this negotiation.

But to my original point: why trade what I was told was a valuable feature back when it wasn't producing anything for us for something now? Why not just let it produce now that we've seen our investment pay off?

And when the day comes that Delta is not making a profit should I expect them to come to me with the idea of how we can garner a win by taking less in rate increases in exchange for a share of PS? Cuz profits will pay big at some point, right?

 

By using that reasoning they wouldn't have negotiated with us in the first place because they, like everyone else, are aware of the "process" we have in place for the TA to be voted on before memrat. Do you mean to say they either didn't know about our process, or have such contempt for our bylaws that that part of the process should be ignored? If neither, then they must have decided to negotiate knowing full well our bylaws involve the possibility of the TA being rejected by the MEC because a group that to that point had only been getting updates and not the full TA.

 

Well Tool. Seems like it's a problem that the NC, and to an extent the MEC created, if they have been agreeing to items we had told them not to in our collective surveys.

It is also obvious that if this TA is rejected, they will not be allowed to fix the problem they created.

Everyone, how long do you think it will take to conduct the appropriate recalls, elections, replace the MEC chairman, nominations for a new NC, select them, train them and resume talks? Honest question.

The reality of it is I'm sure it will take some time. The fact that we will still have PS and will not have agreed to concessions that we would likely have been immediately implemented takes most if not all of the sting out of it.

 

From some relatively sane arguments to the geopolitics of hatred.

 

My Denny speaks for me!

Carl

 

FWIW....I encourage everyone to go on Deltanet and check out there 2015 profit sharing statement under self service tab.

Excellent breakdown put out by the company detailing an individual's PS breakdown.

As a point in reference my PS netted me an additional 17% on top of my gross.

 

They took your retirement and pay, loans and tax breaks from the government and gave it to the top .1%. A McLarren P1 is nearly $1.2 million. You didn't think that guy driving one treated others fair along the way did you? . Those days sailed long ago.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

+1..............mediocre is being very kind.