Details on Delta TA
06-16-2015, 11:02 AM
#9271
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by StepchildF16
I have been reading from the sidelines and talking on the line but decided to finally join the board here. I'm don't see any reason to get emotional about things on the board, but I do see reason to point out error and show fact. Hopefully pilots will read the actual TA, the facts will stand for themselves and the pilots will vote based on fact. My concern is that I never seem to get just fact from DALPA. I get a little bit about fact (sometimes) and then I get a lot about how I should interpret the tidbit they just gave me. It would be nice to be treated as a professional not as a laborer...
I'm not an ALPA hater, but I do need to have a person or entity demonstrate consistently that I can trust them before I will freely endorse and promote them. That's the problem I have with DALPA right now. What makes it worse is that DALPA doesn't care, they don't have to earn my trust, there are enough other people that will blindly follow them. DALPA doesn't need me. That also means that DALPA is not interested in addressing my concerns (survey or emails) or protecting me and my career.
Interestingly DALPA MEC Chairman likes to sign his letters "Fraternally". While I don't have a biological brother, the "brothers" that I regularly turn to don't treat me like that. The true "brothers" deal with me on truth and fact. They aren't trying to carefully choose words to get me to agree with them. They respect me enough to tell me the facts - good or bad - and let me decide. They really want the best for me. "Fraternally" on the letters I receive doesn't have ANY true "brother" sentiment to it.
I have asked for explanation to requests for "ability to say yes" and "consensus" but have not received anything other than a request for blind faith and a rubber stamp. I continue to ask for that. As for the TA, I just ask that my union "brothers" show me that they fought for what I (and the pilot group) wanted from the contract survey. If I'm "out to lunch" on what I want, I can live with that, but I can't buy that the majority of pilots are "out to lunch" and DALPA is the only rational player - especially without any data to back that up.
Here is the letter I sent to the MEC Chairman after his last fraternal letter...
Mike,
I think you have all the tools you need to stop the falsehoods. DALPA represents Delta Pilots. As part of that representation - and DALPA’s responsibility - DALPA conducted a contract survey of its members. Then the MEC provided the direction to the NC and the NC reached a TA. I realize that this is not something you are unfamiliar with.
If you want to show how DALPA is succeeding, then take these steps:
1) Release the results of the DALPA contract survey
2) Release the direction of the MEC to the NC
These 2 items will show that DALPA listened to the concerns and desires of the membership that it represents and that it directed the NC to get a contract obtaining those items.
Once the pilots - myself included - see that DALPA is truly representing me and achieving the desires of the membership as a whole, all of your concern about falsehood will not have a leg to stand on.
If you chose not to be transparent in your representation of the DALPA membership then you leave yourself, the MEC, NC and DALPA as a whole suspect in their actions.
A number of months ago you sent out a request for “the ability to say yes” and “consensus”. The problem with that is - and I asked you these questions directly at the DTW LEC meeting - you don’t want to reveal what you want me to say yes to. You want my consensus but you don’t want to tell me what I’m signing up for. Show and prove that you are truly representing the group through actual data and then you can move DALPA away from the “falsehood” and you can achieve “consensus” and “yes”. Continue on the current path and what you refer to as “falsehood” will grow. You have the tools to stop this.
As for the contract:
1) Pay rates acceptable but nothing great - based on inflation adjusted 2000-2004 rates. Also trading PS for pay 1-1 not great, should have been a better raise in 2nd year to offset at least some of the trade. DC should be 20% min to make up for lost retirements - it’s just simple math.
2) Sick time - tighten it up - fine. treat the entire pilot group like kindergarteners (laborers) - unacceptable. If you think there are abusers, address it with them. Don’t penalize me. Worst part - getting the company involved in my medical information. This is the main reason I’ll vote no.
3) JV - company is not in compliance so you settle for penny’s on the dollar and then instead of having them fix it, we rewrite the contract to put them in compliance. IF we do that, we should get something for it - we aren’t…
While there are other annoyances in the contract, these 3 are my biggest concerns.
As I stated above, releasing the survey results and MEC direction to NC will bring to light that pay, sick time and JV language in the TA all followed the desires of the membership - falsehood problem solved. or not?
Fraternally,
BTW, I'm a solid no vote.
I'm not an ALPA hater, but I do need to have a person or entity demonstrate consistently that I can trust them before I will freely endorse and promote them. That's the problem I have with DALPA right now. What makes it worse is that DALPA doesn't care, they don't have to earn my trust, there are enough other people that will blindly follow them. DALPA doesn't need me. That also means that DALPA is not interested in addressing my concerns (survey or emails) or protecting me and my career.
Interestingly DALPA MEC Chairman likes to sign his letters "Fraternally". While I don't have a biological brother, the "brothers" that I regularly turn to don't treat me like that. The true "brothers" deal with me on truth and fact. They aren't trying to carefully choose words to get me to agree with them. They respect me enough to tell me the facts - good or bad - and let me decide. They really want the best for me. "Fraternally" on the letters I receive doesn't have ANY true "brother" sentiment to it.
I have asked for explanation to requests for "ability to say yes" and "consensus" but have not received anything other than a request for blind faith and a rubber stamp. I continue to ask for that. As for the TA, I just ask that my union "brothers" show me that they fought for what I (and the pilot group) wanted from the contract survey. If I'm "out to lunch" on what I want, I can live with that, but I can't buy that the majority of pilots are "out to lunch" and DALPA is the only rational player - especially without any data to back that up.
Here is the letter I sent to the MEC Chairman after his last fraternal letter...
Mike,
I think you have all the tools you need to stop the falsehoods. DALPA represents Delta Pilots. As part of that representation - and DALPA’s responsibility - DALPA conducted a contract survey of its members. Then the MEC provided the direction to the NC and the NC reached a TA. I realize that this is not something you are unfamiliar with.
If you want to show how DALPA is succeeding, then take these steps:
1) Release the results of the DALPA contract survey
2) Release the direction of the MEC to the NC
These 2 items will show that DALPA listened to the concerns and desires of the membership that it represents and that it directed the NC to get a contract obtaining those items.
Once the pilots - myself included - see that DALPA is truly representing me and achieving the desires of the membership as a whole, all of your concern about falsehood will not have a leg to stand on.
If you chose not to be transparent in your representation of the DALPA membership then you leave yourself, the MEC, NC and DALPA as a whole suspect in their actions.
A number of months ago you sent out a request for “the ability to say yes” and “consensus”. The problem with that is - and I asked you these questions directly at the DTW LEC meeting - you don’t want to reveal what you want me to say yes to. You want my consensus but you don’t want to tell me what I’m signing up for. Show and prove that you are truly representing the group through actual data and then you can move DALPA away from the “falsehood” and you can achieve “consensus” and “yes”. Continue on the current path and what you refer to as “falsehood” will grow. You have the tools to stop this.
As for the contract:
1) Pay rates acceptable but nothing great - based on inflation adjusted 2000-2004 rates. Also trading PS for pay 1-1 not great, should have been a better raise in 2nd year to offset at least some of the trade. DC should be 20% min to make up for lost retirements - it’s just simple math.
2) Sick time - tighten it up - fine. treat the entire pilot group like kindergarteners (laborers) - unacceptable. If you think there are abusers, address it with them. Don’t penalize me. Worst part - getting the company involved in my medical information. This is the main reason I’ll vote no.
3) JV - company is not in compliance so you settle for penny’s on the dollar and then instead of having them fix it, we rewrite the contract to put them in compliance. IF we do that, we should get something for it - we aren’t…
While there are other annoyances in the contract, these 3 are my biggest concerns.
As I stated above, releasing the survey results and MEC direction to NC will bring to light that pay, sick time and JV language in the TA all followed the desires of the membership - falsehood problem solved. or not?
Fraternally,
BTW, I'm a solid no vote.
Nice letter. Btw, did he or perhaps even his wife, since he's inundated currently, ever answer you?
06-16-2015, 11:10 AM
#9272
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Yes, you are. Can't imagine what you hope to gain by lying about it:
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
Prove it then, and I will agree with your side.
Originally Posted by Professor
I will give you a current account of my FPL.
21 hours.
21 hours.
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
Other than that it is more of your patented union busting tactics.
Carl
06-16-2015, 11:12 AM
#9273
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by Trip7
Way too early to tell. If Delta is running full steam ahead on all cylinders, another 20% is not out of the question. When AA finally comes back to the table our rates could be 30%+ ahead
If we accept this deal we will basically be telling Management we are willing to accept whatever scraps they benevolently offer us without a fight. There is no way on Gods green earth we will ever be 30% ahead of AMR, unless you're willing to give away what's left of our work rules which you seem ok with so far.
06-16-2015, 11:15 AM
#9274
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
OK:
By the way, the only "side" I hope you agree with tsquare is what your own mind tells you is right. In my opinion, the MEC produced explanations of the TA language is the worst choice. The actual TA language is the best choice. It's relatively straight forward and easy to understand.
Carl
By the way, the only "side" I hope you agree with tsquare is what your own mind tells you is right. In my opinion, the MEC produced explanations of the TA language is the worst choice. The actual TA language is the best choice. It's relatively straight forward and easy to understand.
Carl
I do agree with you that we should read the TA language itself. I don't agree that it is easy to understand. It is legalese, and that is not always self explanatory. Consider me the lowest common denominator if you want, but I can't necessarily understand the legal words, so I need a little help. I do not care if someone is on FPL or not as long as I get good information. I have no agenda.
06-16-2015, 11:18 AM
#9275
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
Leo was a crook.
There are no lock ups.
The benefit is mostly received by those holding the 800 million shares.
And I know you.
There are no lock ups.
The benefit is mostly received by those holding the 800 million shares.
And I know you.
Carl
06-16-2015, 11:21 AM
#9276
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
Originally Posted by lineplug
Professor:
I don't think I will be able to make any of the road shows so could you please help me out.
Did the NC look at any numbers for how the LCA change will impact the F/Os? I have seen a lot of numbers thrown around but I'm really interested to know how many less line holders and how many less F/O jobs we're talking about. Surely the NC had to have some hard data before signing off on that. It has to affect more than just those directly getting LCA trips.
I don't think I will be able to make any of the road shows so could you please help me out.
Did the NC look at any numbers for how the LCA change will impact the F/Os? I have seen a lot of numbers thrown around but I'm really interested to know how many less line holders and how many less F/O jobs we're talking about. Surely the NC had to have some hard data before signing off on that. It has to affect more than just those directly getting LCA trips.
While I would like to give you a definitive answer, no one knows exactly.
Either DALPA didn't do the mock bid runs or they did and don't want to release them. This leaves us with trying to construct a model.
We do know the following: There are around 700 LCA. Some types of training require a lot of hours, new hire, and some types don't require much, line check. We are in a hiring phase and retirements are just starting to kick into higher gear. That means more LCA activity.
With PBS, any FO can bid onto a LCA's line if they have enough seniority. Under the TA, only 25% of the awarded CA trips will be available for FO's to bid. The remaining 75% of trips that have been awarded to LCA's will disappear from the biddable trips. How many? We don't really know. Whoever has done a definitive audit isn't talking. And, this number will change according to time of year, training cycles and hiring patterns.
If you are the type of guy looking for the exact numbers. They are not to be had. I don't think you need the exact numbers to predict the behavior and effects. LCA trips will still go to senior FO's. 75% of the trips will be withheld from the biddable trips. There will be no way of knowing until you get a reasons report.
This effect will start a cascade. Really senior guys won't suffer at all. Nor will they change their bidding behavior. Upper middle senior guys will no longer get the good deal. They will receive trips that a more junior guy will have gotten. So on and so forth until the last group in the category can't hold a line and will be involuntarily thrown on reserve.
Repeat this in EVERY category in EVERY base EVERY month.
Some of the senior guys will give up and upgrade. This may in turn displace a very junior captain.
I'm a captain. It won't effect me in the least. If you are an FO, it will effect in significant ways. We just can't quantify those numbers. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful. The one thing that we do know is it's concessionary.
06-16-2015, 11:22 AM
#9277
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Again, you and Professor are both confusing stock buy back programs with dividends. Dividends directly enrich stockholders. Stock buy back programs directly enrich executives...when they even work.
Carl
Carl
06-16-2015, 11:24 AM
#9280
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
Consider me the lowest common denominator if you want
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
but I can't necessarily understand the legal words, so I need a little help.
I'm sure someone will hold your hand and help you across the proverbial "legal street"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
