Harwood's 3/10 post
03-13-2016 | 07:27 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
What I find interesting is this:
Harwood was bating the MEC, and the MEC took the bait. The MEC was offered a election at the next regular meeting by John Malone but they chose to go ahead with the recall of Rich. (The MEC Chairman can call for an election of the Negotiating Committee and Merger Committee at any time)
What this shows is that the MEC choose to go with the swift divisive action versus the more deliberate business like approach to the issue that Malone offered. I am sure that the NMB and the company will note that.
Its also notable that the resolution for recall came from C44, who ran their elections based on recall of the former reps, and the new rep who was the maker of the resolution has likely never even met Harwood.
The new MEC and these new reps in ATL are apparently very supportive of Malone, as they should be, but they are not listening to his advice or recommendations. This better not translate in to how well they are listening to Strat Planning, the negotiators, and the MEC Chairman ref the section 6 negotiations.
Harwood was bating the MEC, and the MEC took the bait. The MEC was offered a election at the next regular meeting by John Malone but they chose to go ahead with the recall of Rich. (The MEC Chairman can call for an election of the Negotiating Committee and Merger Committee at any time)
What this shows is that the MEC choose to go with the swift divisive action versus the more deliberate business like approach to the issue that Malone offered. I am sure that the NMB and the company will note that.
Its also notable that the resolution for recall came from C44, who ran their elections based on recall of the former reps, and the new rep who was the maker of the resolution has likely never even met Harwood.
The new MEC and these new reps in ATL are apparently very supportive of Malone, as they should be, but they are not listening to his advice or recommendations. This better not translate in to how well they are listening to Strat Planning, the negotiators, and the MEC Chairman ref the section 6 negotiations.
03-13-2016 | 07:33 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
I see long term debt is down to $6.7bn. In "other" in the same category there is an amount approx $18bn and under Current Liabilities another aniunt for $13bn. What exactly does that debt represent?
AAL has nearly the same total debt, it's just held in different categories.
NotEnuf, thanks for pasting that. So funded by 2031. Nice to see they contributed in 2015, my Reps had stated this was not the case in the years prior.
AAL has nearly the same total debt, it's just held in different categories.
NotEnuf, thanks for pasting that. So funded by 2031. Nice to see they contributed in 2015, my Reps had stated this was not the case in the years prior.
Where did all that extra money go?
What was the FX headwind last year?
What are they saying about the US and global economies?
We will make money no doubt, and decent money, but you have to look at where the profit came from in 13,14,15 and where its going to come from in 16. You need to look at how much of the 16 profit will be fuel savings vice prior years. What are the other carriers doing? What is your SWOT analysis and how can UAL and AMR and the ongoings there change the pricing dynamic. How does labor mitigate that thread?
Its still a very good environment to negotiate in, but there are waring signs there to the comfort level of new large pilot labor checks and the willingness that a corporation will have to sign those. Negotiating thru a downturn doesn't benefit this pilot group.
03-13-2016 | 07:35 AM
#43
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,332
Likes: 822
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
What I find interesting is this:
Harwood was bating the MEC, and the MEC took the bait. The MEC was offered a election at the next regular meeting by John Malone but they chose to go ahead with the recall of Rich. (The MEC Chairman can call for an election of the Negotiating Committee and Merger Committee at any time)
What this shows is that the MEC choose to go with the swift divisive action versus the more deliberate business like approach to the issue that Malone offered. I am sure that the NMB and the company will note that.
Its also notable that the resolution for recall came from C44, who ran their elections based on recall of the former reps, and the new rep who was the maker of the resolution has likely never even met Harwood.
The new MEC and these new reps in ATL are apparently very supportive of Malone, as they should be, but they are not listening to his advice or recommendations. This better not translate in to how well they are listening to Strat Planning, the negotiators, and the MEC Chairman ref the section 6 negotiations.
Harwood was bating the MEC, and the MEC took the bait. The MEC was offered a election at the next regular meeting by John Malone but they chose to go ahead with the recall of Rich. (The MEC Chairman can call for an election of the Negotiating Committee and Merger Committee at any time)
What this shows is that the MEC choose to go with the swift divisive action versus the more deliberate business like approach to the issue that Malone offered. I am sure that the NMB and the company will note that.
Its also notable that the resolution for recall came from C44, who ran their elections based on recall of the former reps, and the new rep who was the maker of the resolution has likely never even met Harwood.
The new MEC and these new reps in ATL are apparently very supportive of Malone, as they should be, but they are not listening to his advice or recommendations. This better not translate in to how well they are listening to Strat Planning, the negotiators, and the MEC Chairman ref the section 6 negotiations.
03-13-2016 | 07:36 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
And... the song remains the same...
It would seem showing a mediator just a sample of the public castigating of this group by the ousted regime would be enough to explain any expedited path to replacing them. All.
FM...you seem unable to comprehend or accept the vast majority of this group viewed the proposed deal... negotiated on the cusp of a 'downturn'..... was inferior to the deal we presently have.
So why the hurry to once again..... and as before at the urging of alpa operatives....cut our own throats?
It would seem showing a mediator just a sample of the public castigating of this group by the ousted regime would be enough to explain any expedited path to replacing them. All.
FM...you seem unable to comprehend or accept the vast majority of this group viewed the proposed deal... negotiated on the cusp of a 'downturn'..... was inferior to the deal we presently have.
So why the hurry to once again..... and as before at the urging of alpa operatives....cut our own throats?
03-13-2016 | 07:39 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
He needed to go for his vocal dissention. There is no place for him in the new administration. He will continue to make his plea, I am sure. At least now, I and the rest of the pilot group are not paying him for his divisive rhetoric and lack of support of the new direction.
03-13-2016 | 07:41 AM
#46
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,332
Likes: 822
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
It is an internal staffing issue, how does that impact mediation? The recall was supported 18/1. Why waste another minute on the issue? They are decisive, I think that bodes well for leadership.
Last edited by notEnuf; 03-13-2016 at 07:54 AM.
03-13-2016 | 09:32 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
A contract that can be ratified by the majority of the pilot group. One that presents itself sooner rather than later. That's my agenda.
That requires us to negotiate, and deal with some company issues. Do it now, or do it later, but to get to a deal the Negotiators, MEC and the pilot group is going to have to understand that there is no way that demand based bargaining is going to result in the NMB forcing the company to a deal solely on our terms. Nor is just moving the sick leave year to your DOH addressing their concerns to a point they will sign the deal.
I would bet there is a deal that could be done sooner rather than later, and one that would pass the pilot group by a large margin. Mistakes were made by both parties last time and everyone admits that, but going from the TA to a deal that is an increase in cost of 1.3 billion from the rejected ta in year three is not how we get to a deal.
It requires us to be realistic on what the marketplace, NMB, and pattering will yield. Just because the reengagement proposal is only 6% higher than rates ten years ago does not mean that anyone or anything can force that deal. You want to wait for a 21% raise or bust, you will be waiting 24-36 months, have rates less than the rejected ta due to compounding, and miss one if not two bargaining cycles. For someone your age that is 500,000 to a million dollars lost in career earnings and work rule improvements. If this drags out I expect DAL to demand a 4-6 year deal and that will result in less opportunities to negotiate. That's not good for this pilot group long term.
Many tout on one hand that its the "QOL" issues that rejected the TA, but then claim that the 22% is the min acceptable with no "concessions." Which is it? I see a lot of people talking out both sides of their mouths.
The company is going to play it slow and deliberate until they know that they have a MEC that can put their big boy pants on, can get to a deal, and understand that to do so they need to deal with the top company issues. Until the company believes that this can happen, they are not going to move off their issues or move towards our table positions. Last thing they will do is add any value unless they are assured they can get a deal that is ratified by the MEC. Political change has that affect on the other party. It feels good to rid the union of "dead wood" but it also slows down progress.
Its not an agenda, its the way negotiations work. C2K had quids like the removal of all PS, 3.B.6, partial month moveups, and scope unless you buy in to the idea that the metrics that were agreed to would have grown mainline to over 1000 jets. If you recall DAL ordered almost 700 RJ's in 2000, and the ratios would have required significant mainline growth in a faltering economy.
I would say, there is leverage in the 65-35 vote. Its leverage to have the company move to where the MEC attempted negotiations to go last time with their multiple redirects. What it is not is leverage to triple to cost of a three year deal. If that is our min, the cost is just going to be too much for the company to swallow and they will accept the "damage" from protracted negotiations. Its a business decision.
That requires us to negotiate, and deal with some company issues. Do it now, or do it later, but to get to a deal the Negotiators, MEC and the pilot group is going to have to understand that there is no way that demand based bargaining is going to result in the NMB forcing the company to a deal solely on our terms. Nor is just moving the sick leave year to your DOH addressing their concerns to a point they will sign the deal.
I would bet there is a deal that could be done sooner rather than later, and one that would pass the pilot group by a large margin. Mistakes were made by both parties last time and everyone admits that, but going from the TA to a deal that is an increase in cost of 1.3 billion from the rejected ta in year three is not how we get to a deal.
It requires us to be realistic on what the marketplace, NMB, and pattering will yield. Just because the reengagement proposal is only 6% higher than rates ten years ago does not mean that anyone or anything can force that deal. You want to wait for a 21% raise or bust, you will be waiting 24-36 months, have rates less than the rejected ta due to compounding, and miss one if not two bargaining cycles. For someone your age that is 500,000 to a million dollars lost in career earnings and work rule improvements. If this drags out I expect DAL to demand a 4-6 year deal and that will result in less opportunities to negotiate. That's not good for this pilot group long term.
Many tout on one hand that its the "QOL" issues that rejected the TA, but then claim that the 22% is the min acceptable with no "concessions." Which is it? I see a lot of people talking out both sides of their mouths.
The company is going to play it slow and deliberate until they know that they have a MEC that can put their big boy pants on, can get to a deal, and understand that to do so they need to deal with the top company issues. Until the company believes that this can happen, they are not going to move off their issues or move towards our table positions. Last thing they will do is add any value unless they are assured they can get a deal that is ratified by the MEC. Political change has that affect on the other party. It feels good to rid the union of "dead wood" but it also slows down progress.
Its not an agenda, its the way negotiations work. C2K had quids like the removal of all PS, 3.B.6, partial month moveups, and scope unless you buy in to the idea that the metrics that were agreed to would have grown mainline to over 1000 jets. If you recall DAL ordered almost 700 RJ's in 2000, and the ratios would have required significant mainline growth in a faltering economy.
I would say, there is leverage in the 65-35 vote. Its leverage to have the company move to where the MEC attempted negotiations to go last time with their multiple redirects. What it is not is leverage to triple to cost of a three year deal. If that is our min, the cost is just going to be too much for the company to swallow and they will accept the "damage" from protracted negotiations. Its a business decision.
