Originally Posted by NERD (Post 1898253)

Van ride this morning. FO "that Curly guy is an *******! He needs an ass kicking". Me"yep". We need a poll on how many pilots are thinking this. Thank god he retires in 2020. Not soon enough.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1898255)

Letter to MEC.

We cannot afford to be afraid.

Over 70 years ago Napoleon Hill wrote Think and Grow Rich. It is more popular today than it was back then. Andrew Carnegie suggested Napoleon interview the most successful men in the world. And he did.

What did he find? What was the key to success?

The single common thread? Being fearless.

Management has run a campaign of fear to perfection.

Are you afraid if we don't accept this deal we will have to wait 3 years for another?

It is all a game and they are the masters.

What if Orville and Wilbur were afraid? Is Elon Musk afraid? Paul Revere? Dave Behncke? Thomas Edison? Steve Jobs?

Where would we be today if these men were not fearless?

You would be riding to the MEC meeting on horseback and you certainly would not be pilots.

Time is on our side and the Delta pilots are in no rush. Join together and abandon your fear.

Accepting this deal will be the biggest regret of your lives. Stand tall, reject this TA. Go in and get us the deal we all expected. The deal we so richly deserve.

Fraternally

Captain J.J. Fielding, Jr.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1898353)

You want to know what a split MEC tells me? It tells me the deal is NOT good enough. A deal that is a clear win is going to garner a clear majority of votes not just barely pass or fail the MEC.

As far as APA goes..........I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I agree that we broke the log jam with C2012. It's a minor reason for why I voted for it. We have a much better current/active contract than they did for those years. Again, why can't we follow the foot print of negotiations for C2001?

Denny

Originally Posted by rube (Post 1898402)

I can't believe that anyone who flies for Delta wouldn't know why. Mostly because Leo Mullin was stupid, and Richard Anderson is not.

Different timelines, too:

POS 96
+ NWA lockout
+ Delta Dot with 777 rate
+ UAL contract
- overtime antics by DAL pilots
+ management missteps in hostage taking and a trip to court
----------
Galvanized pilot group and good case at NMB, resulting in C2K (albeit with scope clauses that would be rejected out of hand today).

Versus the current narrative:

Ten lost years
- merger madness (look at how consolidation impacted rail workers)
+ JCBA
- knucklehead strategies at APA and USAPA
+ C2012
+ UAL contract
+ AAL contract
----------
Equals our current situation today.

C2015 if the pilots want it, and a trip to the NMB if they don't. A test between one argument based on the market, and another based on fairness. The company saying "we clearly want to get a deal," and the union saying "the highest pay rates, best work rules, and best profit sharing in the industry isn't enough for us - we want more."

What's your BATNA?

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1898414)

I would love to follow that footprint. But, that was a 100% unified MEC and the results showed. Arguably it was the best contract ever. I voted NO because of the scope. It sucked big time, but the pay was outstanding. Our MEC is nowhere as unified and is more or less split down the middle. Council 1 and 20 are certainly not happy with the MEC and they have chosen to make that fact public. This isn't lost on the company negotiating team and RA.

Originally Posted by RockyBoy (Post 1898372)

Yeah, you are right. Some don't think it is a good idea. I believe that it is, just not inside section 6. I guess it could work if they would not attempt to fund a raise in rates with the value of the monetized PS.

There are two polarizing topics if you read though all the BS the last few weeks.

1. Funding a raise in rates with the value of monetized PS.
2. Sick leave changes.

If we did not have rumors of those two issues, 95% of the hysteria would not be here.

I'm 99.5% certain that both of those will be in the TA that none of us have seen yet. My survey said don't do anything with PS and don't do anything with sick leave unless you want to IMPROVE it. So, if they attempt to monetize PS and have something other than an improved sick leave section, I'm a no vote. I won't even waste my time attending a road show.

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1898386)

Huh?

That's not trading 1:1 and your math is wrong.

If we trade 10% profit sharing (of 20% PS) for a 10% raise then: $100,000 + $10,000 = $110,000 + $11,000 = $121,000.

$110,000 with 10% profit sharing is $121,000. Which is $1,000 more than just 20% profit sharing on $100,000. So trading profit sharing 1:1 for pay rates you get more.

And the rumor is trading 5.75%. If true I am for it.

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1898188)

Looks like my my lawyer, the great Denny Crane, speaks for me. Well said.

Ill wait to see what comes out Tuesday. I hope we didn't just rearrange the deck chairs.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1898414)

I would love to follow that footprint. But, that was a 100% unified MEC and the results showed. Arguably it was the best contract ever. I voted NO because of the scope. It sucked big time, but the pay was outstanding. Our MEC is nowhere as unified and is more or less split down the middle. Council 1 and 20 are certainly not happy with the MEC and they have chosen to make that fact public. This isn't lost on the company negotiating team and RA.

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1898421)

Wait till you see the new 23g5 and the implications and precedent that sets. Whether you are one of the senior pilots who benefits the most or not, it is going to have a ripple effect down the FO list. (Assuming the rumors are true)