Harwood's 3/10 post
03-13-2016 | 09:37 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,106
Likes: 102
03-13-2016 | 09:39 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Keep in mind that these are two people that have been doing this type of work for decades, and had very established relationships with the MEC Leaders that were thrown out on their butts.
All of this was detailed to the pilot group last summer. It should not surprise anyone.
03-13-2016 | 09:45 AM
#53
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,339
Likes: 829
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
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.
TVNC = time value of no concessions
03-13-2016 | 09:59 AM
#54
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
03-13-2016 | 10:01 AM
#55
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
I would be shocked if it was good news. At the road shows the former Negotiators stated that Linda and Harry both had straight talk about the TA in front of them, its cost ref the rest of the sector, and any "help" that they could offer to a better deal. They also apparently told the MEC's in years past that the only look at AMR, UAL and SWA to a lesser degree. They do not compare the cargo companies for the "zone."
Keep in mind that these are two people that have been doing this type of work for decades, and had very established relationships with the MEC Leaders that were thrown out on their butts.
All of this was detailed to the pilot group last summer. It should not surprise anyone.
Keep in mind that these are two people that have been doing this type of work for decades, and had very established relationships with the MEC Leaders that were thrown out on their butts.
All of this was detailed to the pilot group last summer. It should not surprise anyone.
Pathetic.
03-13-2016 | 10:47 AM
#59
Banned
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Do you have any details. I gave none and have heard none other then they were not happy. One person mentioned a timeline was discussed and it was not favorable. It would be nice to know the true sentiments of the NMB if that was passed on to the reps. I was somewhat surprised the NMB wanted to meet them in the first place. It may all be a rumor and they have not meet at all. A meeting seems unlikely at this stage.
03-13-2016 | 11:48 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
NO...NO...NO...as I answered the survey questions about at what point in the process I believed an agreement would be reached.
Until the young lady got to the job action point. Y-E-S.
That's what it will take.
But as I elaborated.... at this point there is nothing more that will be taken from me....... so go ahead. I have a torch in one hand.... and a lighter in the other.
And I don't believe I am alone in having that equipment list at the ready.
Until the young lady got to the job action point. Y-E-S.
That's what it will take.
But as I elaborated.... at this point there is nothing more that will be taken from me....... so go ahead. I have a torch in one hand.... and a lighter in the other.
And I don't believe I am alone in having that equipment list at the ready.
