Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Council 20 Smoke Update >

Council 20 Smoke Update

Notices

Council 20 Smoke Update

Old 07-07-2015, 10:03 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Default Council 20 Smoke Update

C20 / DTW Update
Contrails or Smoke?
July 7, 2015

First of all….We hope everyone had a great Independence Day weekend, whether it was time with family and friends or while at work.

TA Vote Closes, Friday July 10 at 2PM ET. If you’re having any trouble voting please contact ALPA Membership Services at 888-FLY-ALPA, option 3 (two times). If you have any other questions about voting or the process in general, please call / contact us. Please either call or text if your issue(s) / question(s) are time critical; we have a significant email backlog that we are working through from the past several days. If you don’t get an initial response please be persistent and try all three of us. Thanks for your patience.

The Path Forward.
The balloting results should be known within a couple hours after the close of balloting.

If the TA passes, an implementation schedule will be published within several days.

If the TA fails, well, a whole range of interconnected decisions will have to be made by both the Company and ALPA; Re-engage? Don’t re-engage? Wait? Until when? With whose involvement? Under what parameters / threats / deadlines?
Whatever those choices are, what is for certain is that we'll continue to work together under our existing pay, work rules (including sick leave, productivity and SCOPE), and profit sharing parameters, continuing to do the best job possible for our airline, our passengers, our fellow employees…. and of course the shareholders….
The Path to a deal is not likely through the NMB, even if they are ultimately involved; it will be through the mutual needs of both parties.

Please see our last two updates for the more in depth considerations discussed previously. Long version ; Short version

Are those Contrails…… or just smoke……? There have been several items that have been published by the MEC Administration and Negotiating Committee, presented at roadshows, or used as talking points which we believe are unclear at best, don’t tell the whole story, are misleading at worst….or we just plain disagree with.

It’s also clear that the effort to pass this TA has become an all-in, over the top effort, with plenty of fear and threats being served up from all directions. This could be due to an actual belief in the benefits of the TA, fear of the threats, fear of or discomfort with a less well-defined or absolute path, or simply being so committed to getting “a win” that ego has become the prime motivator. This TA campaign has included hundreds of pages of information that has become more selectively focused as we approach the end of the process, recently including two True Headings which took serious liberties with the details; one even printed on attention grabbing yellow paper (in the lounges), and the other seemingly so rushed that it had obvious typos in the text and email header. Hey, everyone makes typos, and we probably have a few within this document, but some of this stuff has become pretty “breathless”.

· Multiple references to aggregate pay charts and graphs which don’t include the offset from the 5.74% W2 reduction in profit sharing for 2016 and beyond, nor the possible effects of “me too” / PWA 3.B.4 raises (where IF the other employees received raises, we’d receive the lesser of the other employees’ raises or the UAL/AMR composite, which would be the 3% UAL and AMR raises for at least the next 2 years). This includes the often referenced table that purports to outline the contract gains which would be necessary in future years if there were not a deal until that point; this table does NOT consider the compounding effects / offset of the PS money that would not be received since it would be used to buy the 1/1/16 rate increase.

· The charts highlight diametrically opposed assumptions and don’t consider other effects such as reduced staffing requirements should the TA pass nor do they highlight other intangibles similar to those included in decisions about bidding a different position or category that go beyond hourly pay rates.

· None of these charts quantify the other contractual reductions or overall aggregate contract value changes.

· References to the PS trade for 5.74% at $6B PTIX being paid at a premium in our favor, in part since “Delta hasn’t ever made a $6B profit”. $6B PTIX is a number that Delta has already been near in 2014 where the publicly announced pre-tax income was $4.5B and the corresponding PTIX was $5.8B.

· There appears to be a failure to comprehensively explain the relationship between consolidated pre-tax profit and PTIX (upon which the PS is determined):
o PTIX is greater than the publicly reported consolidated pre-tax income and essentially equal to the sum of:
§ The consolidated pre-tax income
§ The expense accrued with respect to the profit sharing plan
§ All asset write downs related to long term assets
§ Gains or losses with respect to extraordinary, one-time or non-recurring events
§ Gains or losses with respect to employee equity securities. (This is changed in the C2015 TA; this item essentially represents management stock plans and would count against the profit sharing pool).

· One of the TA campaign Contrails spent significant effort justifying that the PS trade valuation was a good deal at 5.74%. The actual issue isn’t the valuation methodology, it’s the amount of the pay rate increase prior to the PS conversion.

· “The first deal is always the best deal”. This has been stated many times by the MEC admin, communications and especially the Strategic Planning Committee CH, without broad detailed substantiation. However the most distracting issue relative to this characterization is when the 2008 JCBA negotiations are repeatedly referenced.
o The 2008 failure (after some false deadlines) to initially negotiate an agreement was NOT about looking for more money.
o It was about the Leadership of one of the pre-merger pilot groups being unwilling to agree to a deal that they perceived as having an unacceptable Seniority List Integration (SLI) attached to it and the Leadership of the other pre-merger group unwilling to accept a deal that included arbitration to determine the SLI.
o We’ve come a long way since the merger and put many of those issues behind us. Unfortunately some of those involved with the MEC communications, as well as two other LEC reps’ individual communications to their LEC, have apparently decided to (we believe cynically) continue to use the 2008 JCBA negotiations example which does not have a practical application for C2015.

· “If this TA isn’t passed, we’ll be parked for years….. or end up with a PEB (Presidential Emergency Board)”. We believe this is a drastic overstatement, especially considering that we’re six months prior to the amendable date of the current agreement.

· The comparisons with SWA, FDX, and UPS.
o In 2012 and prior we were told that we couldn’t compare ourselves against them since they either used a “different business model” or were in a different business (cargo).
o Presentation slides show how they haven’t made progress in their respective negotiations over the past several years while we’ve had significant aggregate percentage improvements.
o What’s not shown or recognized in the presentations are their pay rates vs. ours dating back to bankruptcy and the fact that they were never in bankruptcy and never took the 35-40% pay cuts during the referenced period.
o No mention of the obvious math that a 35-40% pay cut requires a 54-67% increase to recover from (which, without the PS conversion, wouldn’t occur until 2018).
o No recognition of the reasons that other groups have been unable to reach a deal; in many cases, what the respective managements want isn’t worth the cost to respective pilot groups, even considering other improvements (Reduce or eliminate the pilots’ DB / pension plan at FDX, productivity issues at SWA, no “cargo” pattern bargaining “partner” at UPS).
o Some of the charts presented in the MEC materials have some interesting differences in how data is presented. For example, the below chart is designed to illustrate the stagnation of the pay rates at FedEx and SWA (which already have “good” rates).




Notice, however, than in this chart, FedEx and SWA do not appear. If one were to provide that data, it would indicate that their pay rates were relatively constant (and at the top of the chart), and never suffered the calamitous drop that DAL, AMR and UAL suffered.




· “Sick leave dropped off significantly in May 2015 after information about the new sick leave language’s retroactivity (originally 36 months) was ‘leaked’ during contract negotiations”.
o This is one of the biggest “whoppers” propagated yet during the roadshows. Utter garbage and the Negotiating Committee should know better.
o IF this surfaced as a rumor on some web board, those participating on them would’ve been the primary population with knowledge of it. (Very few people who have heard this allegation mentioned, especially during the roadshows, had any idea what the presenters, usually a negotiating committee member, were talking about).
o Since those on the web boards are frequently regarded by those who oppose that medium as a fringe minority, this would mean that having a significant May sick call reduction would thus have to be dependent upon this “small group” and those that they have other communications with not calling in sick. Ridiculous.
o In any case, this has the highest probability of just being a politically motivated talking point to attempt to discredit those who don’t agree, do so in an outspoken manner, or just to deflect the blame and responsibility for the inadequacies in the sick leave language of the TA.

· “You have to vote yes even though it’s not a good deal because the MEC is so [select negative description; no expletive intended] and we’re doomed.” The MEC will take the necessary action should the TA fail to press on with the process. A MEMRAT rejection may even serve as a “perspective reset” the MEC.

· There are a few items which have been moving targets relative to their implementation parameters, application, and details since described to the MEC as the “last, best, and final offer”, but do not have any supporting PWA language or language changes. Some of those “after the bell changes” are:
o Retroactivity date for the Sick Leave language, which was initially briefed as 36 months retroactive at the time of implementation, but later changed to June 1, 2015.
o Disposition of medical records and DHS (Director of Health Services) AME responsibilities. Boils down to a letter of commitment from the Company which states that they can’t share your medical records or data with the FAA (without a court order or your approval) vs. the stated FAA requirements to AMEs that requires them to “…report a disqualifying condition either observed or in the course of the examination or otherwise known to exist.” [Our emphasis]. Simply committing to have the records stored away safely in a “lock box” isn’t the point; its what’s done with the records by those who are allowed to have access to them on a much more frequent and comprehensive basis than currently, as well as any associated unintended consequences that will only become fully realized and understood once the language is implemented. The disposition of the records after their contractual use has also not been defined.
o Definition of “bona fide patient relationship” relative to QHCP (Qualified Health Care Professional). Originally briefed to include family, friends and neighbors, most recently now limited to just family. Likely to be an issue of contention once the policy becomes effective and, like with many other areas, the rush to an agreement may have led to a failure to clearly define the term.
o Withholding LCP Rotations from FO Bidding during PBS. MEC Communications have stated that no trips would be withheld for students not based in the LCP’s base. This parameter is not included in the PWA nor the TA language and was not briefed at the time of the TA presentation to the MEC.

· Contrary to the roadshow descriptions, the “test programs” for the virtual basing and the TLV +1 increase are approved for continuation by the MEC Scheduling Committee CH (who works directly for the MEC CH) and the PWA 1.E.9 foreign carrier allowance to use Delta branding is approved by the MEC CH; there are no MEC decisions required in these areas. In theory, the MEC CH works at the direction of the MEC, however, the recent JV Grievance settlement was completed with no input from the MEC whatsoever.

· Revisiting the MEC TA MEMRAT Vote.
o The MEC Policy Manual (Section 9.B.2) states that “No agreement will be submitted to the membership for ratification unless it has first been approved by the MEC” and “When an agreement is to be submitted for membership ratification, following MEC approval and prior to the opening of membership balloting, the complete and final language will be provided to the members for a period of time as determined by the MEC as appropriate under the existing circumstances”.
o An 11-8 majority of the MEC believed however that the following action was sufficient: “Therefore Be It Resolved that the Delta MEC approved submitting this tentative agreement reached with Delta Air Lines for membership ratification”. This occurred after debate and discussion determined that a majority wanted to support sending the TA to MEMRAT without recommendation. While some other Representatives have claimed otherwise, the discussion that occurred prior to the vote, and then afterwards, made it very clear to those present the intent of the agenda item.
o The MEC’s actions have still been described in official MEC communications and talking points as having “approved the TA”.
gzsg is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 10:05 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Default

True Headings 15-08; TA Bullet Points. The general tone, as previously mentioned, is hyperbolic throughout; here’s some notable haze and smoke:
· Medical. Also partially addressed in an earlier section.
o “Most pilots will never have to verify any sick leave with a doctor’s note”. Sure, but if 30% will, that’s an approximate not insignificant 4000 pilots. Many issues which affect far less pilots are still big priorities.
o “If you’re out 20 days for surgery, hospitalization, and fractured bones, the time is not counted… towards the verifications thresholds”. 21 days or greater, not 20.
o “Maintains our industry leading sick time and policies”. Certainly a matter of opinion and previous experience. The fact is, with our current system and a long term sick event, our PWA provides for;
§ A 10-15% pay cut (based upon the temporary disability benefit and how the DPMA benefit is calculated).
§ Pilots on disability are no longer considered an active employee and all that comes with that.
§ The Company responsibility for anything more that 50% (disability benefit) pay terminates after a maximum of 3-4 months, while other comparable carriers’ pilots receive full pay and maintain employee status for much longer with a bank system combined with short term and long term disability.
o “FAA Leave”. A good deal for those with special issuance medical issues, but much more narrowly useful than highlighted.
o “Mental health disability now unlimited”. Except if there’s more than a 50% increase in usage during the term of the contract, in which case the Co can set up a schedule to limit it again or eliminate it, including for existing cases.
o “Establishes a disability bank”. Which can’t be used until after exhaustion of your DPMA benefit. Only accrues at 50% value for annual unused sick hours < 80, then charged at two hours for every one used. The actual benefit is only 15 minutes out of every hour of sick leave <80 hrs. annually not used.

· OE / TOE Rotation Removal.
o “Designated OE time still counts towards staffing formula – no positions will be lost due to this change”. Although this accounts for the single largest staffing reduction in the costing (of course, the actual values are confidential). Since the staffing formula uses a 12-month rolling reference, and includes components such as GSs, reserve usage, etc. that will be affected, the staffing won’t be affected initially, but will eventually.
o (Under) states the small number of pilots affected, both by withholding rotations from FO bidding and the resultant extra reserves. Again, even if the number is relatively small, it is so only at a point in time; it still affects all passing through the affected seniority ranges.
o “Is this a concession? It was key to unlocking gains realized in the rest of the TA”. The limited gains being the most significant problem with this TA.

· Compensation.
o “8% July 1, 6% Jan 1, 2016 – compounded to 14.48% first six months with no change in profit sharing”. Simply isn’t true! The profit sharing formula change (worth 5.74% of W2) is effective concurrent with the Jan 1, 2016 raise. This is a fact, regardless of when the actual reduced PS is paid out.
o “Raise includes change to PS trigger which offsets 5.74% of present wages at assumed PTIX of $6B – the offset is less if PTIX less than $6B”. As discussed earlier, at the Co’s current pre-tax income levels, PTIX is $1B to $1.5B MORE than the publicly reported pre-tax income that most are familiar with. Even at 2014’s $4.5B pre-tax income, the PTIX was already $5.8B, with the projections for this year and beyond to be well above the $5B pre-tax income / $6.5B PTIX range. See chart below for current formula PS W2 / PTIX estimate.



o “Puts pre-merger Delta pilots in line with 1991 wages adjusted for inflation”. But not above 1985 wages adjusted for inflation. I guess it just matters that you select the statistic parameter most favorable to your argument. Both are after deregulation.
o “Puts pre-merger NWA pilots ahead of 1991 wages adjusted for inflation”. But we’re all Delta pilots now, right?

o “Wages 3.5% above American / 15% above United before PS”. But including the PS trade. Without the PS trade the rates never reach the American rates.

o “In 2018, the rates are the highest rates any airline on the planet has paid anyone on all equipment”. Wow, why not just go all out and say the highest rates in the galaxy…. Or even the universe. The data available to prove those are just as readily available as the planetary data for 2018…. Or really even now….. And of course not even considering past inflation adjusted rates. Definitely wins the breathless hyperbole award.


· SCOPE.

o “Tightens AF/KL/AZ JV compliance measurement from 3 years to 1 year and improves tolerance from 1.5% to 1%”. After the metric is changed to block hours and reduced to a level with an additional tolerance that’s at least 2.5% below the current level (which has been below the existing production balance EASK range for the past 4 years).

o Ties SCOPE relief to the purchase of new mainline aircraft that the Co would have to decide whether their business plan supported anyway.


· TA Rejection. Obviously there are significant differences of opinion on this one, we’ve covered our view earlier and in previous updates, but a couple from this TH are worth addressing……

o “No examples at all of management increasing its offer with any group anywhere once the last best offer given (and they’ve said this is it).” Really? What else could they possibly say? “Here’s our final offer but we might have more if you ask nicely”? There’s not any examples with any other employee groups because there’s only really one large unionized group and we’ve never said “NO” (as a group).

o “Any future negotiations faces the same set of priorities on their part and the same hurdles on ours”. What about our priorities and their hurdles? There are still things, as we’ve discussed, that they need from a deal too (productivity, SCOPE, profit sharing reductions ultimately for all employees, and of course sick – and its effects on productivity, to name the main items).
gzsg is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 10:06 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Default

It’s all about the Pay Rates!” (Rich’s Perspective)

I had an interesting encounter the other day with a non-council 20 Pilot, who took the time out of his busy day to take issue with the C20 position on the TA, and told me emphatically, “I’ve been here 28 years, and it’s all about the pay rates, always has been”.

That’s certainly his (or her) perspective, and they have every right to it. As it turns out, this individual’s LEC Representative echoed that view, and so it would seem that the process reflects this pilot’s views, so he/she should feel well represented.

On the other hand, I have had several new hires, who came from carriers that operate equipment essentially identical to the EMB-190, give me an opposing view point.

One such comment was: “I was near the top of the seniority list making near six figures, but every day was a hassle, from scheduling, to work rules, to interaction with management. I came to Delta because of ‘the culture’ and quality of life, and took a substantial pay & seniority cut in the process. If I wanted to be hassled about sick leave, I would have stayed where I was.”

So which is the prevailing viewpoint? There is a certain amount of hyperbole in both ends of the spectrum, but after I looked at the TA, with all of its tentacles, I came to the conclusion that BOTH viewpoints led to the same endpoint: The TA was insufficient.

As a Representative, I usually can’t afford to be a “single issue voter”. I have to consider all viewpoints, ranging from the new hire pilot to the senior pilot who is months from retirement. However, when the sick leave language was briefed to the MEC some weeks ago, I took a long pause, and came to the conclusion that no amount of money could assuage the level of complexity that we are setting ourselves up to deal with on a daily basis. Sick leave issues (along with training) represent the bulk of the pilot issues that Bill, Tom and I (along with our C20 Contract Admin folks) deal with on a regular basis, and that is with the current sick leave language.

The area of sick leave in the TA in particular which gives me significant pause is in Section 14 G. 1. B. and 14 G. 3.:

1. The DHS or his designee may request further information from a pilot who is required to verify regarding his sickness or may require a pilot to provide a medical release when:

b. verification is required, or has been sought under Section 14 F and the DHS is not able to assess the medical basis for the use of sick leave. Note: Prior to requiring a medical release, the pilot must first be provided with an additional opportunity to submit verification that is acceptable to the DHS.

3. If, following the review of information provided pursuant to a medical release, the DHS is not able to satisfactorily assess the medical basis for the use of sick leave, the release may be expanded to include a Company designated doctor or other health care professional(s) and the Director – Health Services and the Senior Vice- President of Flight Operations.

Issues with verification top the list of sick leave topics we deal with, and with the above language if the pilot is unable to verify his/her sick leave to the DHS’s (a company employee) satisfaction, then that pilot will be forced to execute a medical release (supplying the medical records for the event that caused the sick leave). Most individuals are very touchy about releasing medical records (and rightly so), and the company could decide that it is still “insufficient”, expanding the medical issue beyond the DHS to other doctors and management (in this case, the Senior VP of Flight Ops.). From the above language, it appears this requirement can occur with any verification (consecutive/work day limits) event, and not just with the 24/56 work day medical release threshold (which is also an overreach, in my opinion).

What are the consequences of non-compliance? In the past, the PWA was silent on this issue, but the TA adds the following in Section 14.F.5:

If a sickness is not verified and verification for that sickness is required, the pilot will not be paid for the duty missed due to sickness and the pilot may be referred to the Chief Pilot’s Office.

This clearly has the potential to place the pilot in pay and disciplinary jeopardy for getting into a disagreement with the company as to what constitutes description of an illness or the extent, reach and interpretation of medical records. The disposition of any records released to the company, after they have been used for the purposes stated above, has still not been resolved to my satisfaction. A simple “after we use them, we toss them in the shredder” would be a start, but there is no such language, and as best as we can tell, the company may retain any medical records provided indefinitely.

For me, this was simply a line that should never be crossed, and this is only one part of the issues that I have with Section 14 of the TA.

The bonus round of this section includes the fact that the FAA has an Aviation Rule Making Committee (an “ARC”, similar to the one that produced FAR 117) in progress on “pilot fitness” that is wide ranging, and may lead to any number of changes regarding pilot medical qualification. To make industrial changes of this magnitude, prior to what the FAA ultimately decides, is, in my humble opinion, a really bad idea.

But while this was a single issue, there were many other aspects of the TA that were also, in my view, insufficient, or clearly concessionary, such as Scope and OE/TOE FO bidding.

Even if one were to consider the selling of the work rules, in aggregate, to be OK, would the overall compensation increase warrant approval considering the negotiating environment? Even if one focuses only on pure W2 as a measure (which includes swapping profit sharing for pay rates), to the exclusion of everything else, would this TA be sufficient?

Some have the perspective that it is OK to trade quality of life, benefit, and other items to increase the pay rates. Again, everyone needs to evaluate their needs and desires as it suits them individually. I would ask, however, that “net value” of any such trades be examined. Surely we can look at what the company gave us in exchange for “our gives”, but they should also be examined from the perspective of what it would cost us to regain those gives should it become necessary. If the cost to regain items relinquished is out of proportion to what we received in value, then perhaps the bargain should be reconsidered.

In my view, the TA fails the test from any of these perspectives. And at what point do we run out of things to “sell off” for our next raise?

Many have asked how we got to this position. To answer that, I will provide an unadulterated opinion. The “prevailing worldview” of the MEC (which would include some of the 11 Reps who voted to send the TA to ratification) seems to be “pay, pay, pay”, which is heartily reflected in the MEC communications, roadshows, Negotiator’s Notepads, and Pilot-to-Pilot interaction. In fact, a large proportion of the roadshow presentation is occupied with pay rates.

The extent to which pay rates are an exclusionary consideration is reflected in both communications from some of the councils which supported the TA, and the use of other properties’ negotiating priorities as an example of what “not to do”.

To quote one Representative’s viewpoint from a recent communication: “Back in 2008 we had a tentative agreement on the table in February, but we were unable to execute on that agreement. Just four months later we had a follow on agreement that shaved 2% off of our pay and eliminated DC payment parity for pre‐merger NWA pilots for a loss in value for that agreement of $250M.”

What is left unsaid is that the agreement was contingent on acceptance of a seniority list integration that was unpalatable to a large proportion of the participants. But even if that had been mentioned, the clear implication would have been that the participants were foolish not to trade perhaps their most precious item, seniority, for a relatively small amount of compensation. That begs the question: How much money is seniority worth? In my opinion, seniority is not for sale at any price, and to try to imply that it should be is a very unpleasant precedent by those using this particular “factoid”.

This worldview is also reflected in the various MEC communications’ comments regarding the “undesirable state” of mediation in which the Southwest and FedEx pilots are currently occupied. In the case of the FedEx pilots, their management desires to sunset their defined benefit pension and to implement PBS bidding. In the case of the Southwest pilots, their management is also asking for PBS bidding and other “productivity enhancements”.

All pilots are acutely sensitive to both retirement and productivity issues. PBS, in particular, comes with an entire host of related productivity issues (“touching trips” possibly eliminated, for example). However, to paint either group as being unreasonable, with the implication that “cashing it out” would serve them better to move the process along, is simply an imposition of the “pay rates at any cost” mantra on another group’s negotiating priorities. I’m sure if all Delta pilots currently had a well-funded active defined benefit plan, we would also be guarding it with similar vigor, and would probably have similar compensatory expectations for an acceptable resolution as well.

While pay rates are very important, I do not believe they should be held to the exclusion of other supremely important sections of the PWA, including benefits, quality of life, scope and, obviously, seniority. I believe that Delta pilots are intelligent enough to realize that pay rates alone do not tell the whole story.


Another Few Days to Go. (Bill’s Perspective)
Soon we’ll know whether or not the pilot group accepts this early deal at a discount, seemingly with minimal to no funding in the “good will” column of the agreement. This deal appears to be designed to get as close to 50% as possible, with any excess “support” likely being duly noted to help “better” calibrate the C2018 “last, best, and final offer”.

If ratification is successful, it will probably occur with a majority of the membership having a negative view of the Agreement, with much of the “success” attributable to fear, threats and the uncertainty of a different path.

The ultimate referendum about the satisfaction level regarding this agreement and the manner in which it was reached will again fall to the membership when they choose to exert their control over how the MEC conducts business and reaches solutions, by choosing to participate in the regular process of selecting their Local Representatives.

The Five Stages of TA Grieving. After having been through these TA ratifications a few times, in good times and in bad, and thinking in broad, general terms, I came up with the partially satirical five stages of TA grieving:

Anger
Rationalization
Submission
Compliance & Advocacy
Reassertion of Exceptionalism

Most of us have likely been though stage 1 at some level and many may still be there. The percentage of the group that gets through stages 2 and 3 will determine the vote, assisted of course by those who are in or maybe even started in stage 4. Stage 5 is reserved for those heavily invested in this agreement as described at the beginning.

I’ve been told that my conventional wisdom perspective of how this vote will turn out is stale and outdated because of social media and the speed of the transmission of information. We’ll certainly see soon enough. Thanks to all of you for your patience, participation and high level of engagement in the process.

PROCESS? (Tom’s Prospective)
First, I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to read our updates and (hopefully) the updates from other councils. It has always been my desire that pilots be educated and make an informed decision.
You have been inundated with constant communications from various sources, so I’ll try and keep this perspective short and to the point, addressing a single issue: Delta Policy Manual Section 9.B.2. This was addressed earlier in the update but I wanted to expand the commentary and express my dissatisfaction of this TA being sent to you (pilot’s) without an approval OR recommendation from the MEC!
To re-emphasize, the applicable section of Section 9.B.2 of the Delta Policy Manual states:
No agreement will be submitted to the membership for ratification unless it has first been approved by the MEC.
When an agreement is to be submitted for membership ratification, following MEC approval and prior to the opening of membership balloting, the complete and final language will be provided to the members for a period of time as determined by the MEC as appropriate under the existing circumstances.
Here’s my problem………………………
You elected LEC members to represent you at the MEC level. These members sign confidentiality agreements giving them, in many cases, “privileged” information that the pilots will never be privy to. With this privileged information comes great responsibility. After receiving pilots’ direction via personal contact, council meetings, phone calls, emails, Survey’s, etc, these MEC members are tasked with ensuring your direction is met! If the TA falls short of the pilots’ direction, then it should NEVER be approved……period! In this case, the MEC felt that even with all their extensive knowledge, research and debate, and clearly knowing the pilots’ direction, instead of acting on their pilots’ behalf, thought it prudent to send the TA to the pilot group WITHOUT an approval or recommendation!
Bill (Council 20 CH) openly objected to the MEC apparently disregarding the Policy Manual procedures, however the majority ruled and drafted a resolution to send the TA to the pilot group WITHOUT MEC Approval.
This is where I have the biggest problem………………..
Several members of the MEC wanted to draft a PRO-CON letter, detailing a comprehensive breakdown of the TA. This would have been a unified effort by the MEC to produce one document in which we could all endorse and educate the pilots about every area of the TA.
Instead, the majority once again ruled and a MEC generated PRO-CON report was denied, leaving every council on their own to present the TA via local updates.
To summarize……..with the extensive knowledge the members of the MEC possess, instead of voting on this TA, knowing the pilots’ direction; they instead sent it to you, without a recommendation, to approve or reject.
If you had ALL the privileged information the MEC had access to (and certainly some that is considered “confidential” unnecessarily), then you could make a very informed decision. However, that is not the case. Instead of having the full background on every section of the TA, the MEC Leadership hamstrings your decision by only generating the positives of the TA. My question is, how are you supposed to make an educated decision without possessing all the information that your MEC representatives possess?
That leaves us with individual councils trying to fully inform their pilots via updates without breaching the “Confidentially” agreement signed when taking office. So without the survey results, without months and months of background information and endless debate, you are tasked with making a decision, that IN MY OPINION, should have been made at the MEC level FIRST!
Some have asked, “Why do we have an MEC if they are not going to make a recommendation?” I agree and really do not have a good answer for them.
In closing, take the time to cast an informed vote. Do not be swayed by threats made by the MEC admin or upper management. I encourage you to read every council’s updates and form a well-rounded opinion, then make an informed vote.

Fraternally,

Bill, Rich, and Tom

Captain Bill Bartels
LEC Chairman/ Capt. Rep
[email protected]
(734) 834-5634
Rich Wheeler
LEC Vice Chairman/ F/O Rep
[email protected]
(954) 494-5086
Captain Tom Bell
Secretary-Treasurer
gzsg is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 01:45 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: Resting
Posts: 376
Default

If only we could get these pilots to the top of ALPA leadership....
It's nice to see someone who gets it. This whole thing has been very frustrating and disappointing.

I think its a huge step in drawing the distinction between the two types of pilots at Delta. The one's who believe pay is EVERYTHING and the pilots who believe scope, benefits, and QOL are most important.

I feel like we are walking into an inevitable defeat this time, but I'm very encouraged that the newer pilots I talk to seem to be willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary to defend the profession and stop the erosion to many areas of our PWA. In 10 years, unlike today, that mindset will rest with the majority and I hope it results in placing the right kind of leaders in our union. These TA votes are getting closer and closer to 50/50 with each vote. And while its disappointing to be "improving" our profession by these margins, its a clear sign that there is a demographic mindset shift taking place.
mikea72580 is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:02 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Default

Originally Posted by mikea72580 View Post
If only we could get these pilots to the top of ALPA leadership....
It's nice to see someone who gets it. This whole thing has been very frustrating and disappointing.

I think its a huge step in drawing the distinction between the two types of pilots at Delta. The one's who believe pay is EVERYTHING and the pilots who believe scope, benefits, and QOL are most important.

I feel like we are walking into an inevitable defeat this time, but I'm very encouraged that the newer pilots I talk to seem to be willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary to defend the profession and stop the erosion to many areas of our PWA. In 10 years, unlike today, that mindset will rest with the majority and I hope it results in placing the right kind of leaders in our union. These TA votes are getting closer and closer to 50/50 with each vote. And while its disappointing to be "improving" our profession by these margins, its a clear sign that there is a demographic mindset shift taking place.

I can't count the number of times Mike Donatelli has said pay is number one.

How much do you get paid without a job?

Scope is everything.

This JV block hour deal is a huge step backward and the first in death by a thousand cuts. The RJ deal all over again.

"We are drawing a line in the sand!"

Our PWA with these fools is written in pencil.
gzsg is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 03:39 PM
  #6  
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by mikea72580 View Post
If only we could get these pilots to the top of ALPA leadership....
It's nice to see someone who gets it. This whole thing has been very frustrating and disappointing.

I think its a huge step in drawing the distinction between the two types of pilots at Delta. The one's who believe pay is EVERYTHING and the pilots who believe scope, benefits, and QOL are most important.

I feel like we are walking into an inevitable defeat this time, but I'm very encouraged that the newer pilots I talk to seem to be willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary to defend the profession and stop the erosion to many areas of our PWA. In 10 years, unlike today, that mindset will rest with the majority and I hope it results in placing the right kind of leaders in our union. These TA votes are getting closer and closer to 50/50 with each vote. And while its disappointing to be "improving" our profession by these margins, its a clear sign that there is a demographic mindset shift taking place.
I think there are 3 types:

1. Pay is everything
2. Alpa is everything
3. QOL is everything
forgot to bid is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kayco
United
190
08-07-2022 12:19 PM
iceman49
Delta
35
06-30-2015 02:35 PM
iarapilot
Cargo
5
06-02-2014 09:08 PM
Fins Up
Major
245
04-01-2014 03:39 AM
ERJ135
Regional
61
05-28-2013 07:33 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices