![]() |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1906680)
I agree also, but is it really that important? It doesn't change how I am reading the TA, and how I will decide. Does it affect you in that way? It's minutiae, and really not worth getting spun up over imho.
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1906712)
Originally Posted by BobZ http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...s/viewpost.gif
bender....this pilot group has a history of the company not having to 'take' anything from us..... we simply give it away....because dalpa tells us if we don't something even worse will happen.... sound familiar? Are you serious? Hyperbole? So you don't remember the Pilot group taking a voluntary 32% pay cut to avoid BK? Remember do it once do it right? Oh by the way, how did they honor our voluntary sacrifice - thats right they used the BK tool on us anyway taking another 14% via the 1113 process. Scoop |
Also, why at the end of the ALPA notepads does it say please vote yes. I thought the 11-8 MEC vote was to let us vote and not be persuaded by DALPA scare tactics. Still voting Nooooooo!
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1906701)
So you wonder why guys are critical? You conveniently pick the time frame (decade) that makes your point but does not tell the full story.
How about we go to back to 2004? If you want to gain some credibility how about the whole truth? Or do you have to stick with the DALPA talking points? Scoop :confused: Want to go back to 2004? Ok. Which side? Because we end up above 2004 rates in this TA. For nwa rates we end up 24% or more above 2004 rates. So on average fNwa pilots are inflation adjusted plus on this TA. Those are the facts of 2004. But, you have to decide if the concessions outweigh the gains for you personally, and vote b |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1906718)
That was not the question at hand Scoop, and it was not my argument. He changed the direction of the discussion.
Fair enough, I cant keep up but it proves his point about giving is spot on. Scoop :) |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1906675)
Not a real smart way to enrich themselves though, is it?
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1906675)
Come on Carl, you are an executive, you know that doesn't move the needle to any meaningful degree.
Carl |
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 1906714)
True, but it calls in to question whether our MEC is an honest broker of information "the facts".
|
It makes you feel like DALPA doesn't no how to bargain. Send this back and get us a good contract!
|
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1906709)
Your parable is not remotely a "fact". You are seriously trying to defend it as such?
Absolutely. The question will be posed again to you T Bender: Are you refuting that a fast negotiation, where the company controlled the pace, did not work to our advantage? Thanks for the copy on the post T. The more people who see it, the better the understanding of the concept behind controlling the pace of negotiation. We took it a step further by becoming beholden to the pace in the hopes that the compensation would out weigh the concessions. Whoops! Got check mated instead. Here's a repost again The way it was just done was a text book example of how one allows themselves to get negotiated into a corner and checkmated. DELTA: we need a quick agreement, let's open early! Fast fast US: ok, let's go. DELTA: we need drastic changes to SL verification, access to medical records conducted by a third party, and we require the ability to look back. US: no way what we have now is adequate. How about a bank instead? We need to study this. DELTA: no way, this is non negotiable. Come on faster, faster. US: ok then, but bring your check book when we talk money. DELTA: we want virtual bases. Again non negotiable, we must have it. Quickly now. US: no way, it abrogates seniority. Not happening DELLTA: we are trying to do this fast. Come on now. We need it. We have a manning problem. We will bring the check book. US: ok, let us talk to the reps and the MEC. Pause-pause-pause- talk-confer. So you are going bring the check book cause this is going to cost you, right? DELTA: of course we are going to bring it, next up is scope. More big RJs and we need you to relax the JV scope and language. US: what, wait, this is a lot of stuff real fast here. Slow down, scope give backs now! In this environ... DELTA: we NEED THIS. We are bring the check book. Come on hurry up and get with the program. US: ok. DELTA: ok, here is the money, we will write you a check. First, the e ground rules...... Changing PS trigger, 2.5 to 6 B and we are going to change the how it is calculated by subtracting stock options and the salary of executives from the current PTIX definition to come up with a new lower PTIX. So we are going to pay ourselves first and increase our pay once we sign this, you know, a bonus for a job well done. You are going to pay for your pay increase from PS. When it's all said and done, 8/0/3/3, that's it. 1 % DC but not for nearly two years from now. And five pennies per hour-snicker-snicker-is all we could possibly afford for a per diem increase, that's it. US: no way, you said you are going to bring the check book , this is not enough. This is not nearly enough for all the gives we just TA'd for you. We engaged you proactively! Come on now, this is not how it works. DELTA: we brought the check book, see it? However, this is all we are writing the check for. Take it or leave it. Leave it we go to traditional section 6 negotiations and we are done for now. OBTW, we won't get those mD88 replacements and that other jet that will make us a 10 fleet airline, with more training head aches, that we plan on paying a B scale wage for if you don't do this NOW. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1906722)
Fair enough, I cant keep up but it proves his point about giving is spot on.
Scoop :) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:18 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands