Harwood's 3/10 post
03-13-2016 | 12:24 PM
#62
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 637
Likes: 15
From: Stretch DC-9 Gear Slinger
Free Mason said the company will demand a longer contract as a bad thing. I know in 2012 the three year deal was sold as a good thing. Can someone explain why that is so? To me a longer contract would be better.
If you can get 3% or better for along time and not take any concessions to get it. I'll take 15, 4,4,4,4 . . . With no concessions for years and most likely come out way ahead in the long run.
If you can get 3% or better for along time and not take any concessions to get it. I'll take 15, 4,4,4,4 . . . With no concessions for years and most likely come out way ahead in the long run.
03-13-2016 | 01:26 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
In other words, we can't give away the farm for pay raises as often. And they have to wait longer to before they try to get back in office on the heels of lost gains. And they aren't needed in the office as much, meaning they actually have to fly.
It is a travesty in the making of epic proportions!
03-13-2016 | 01:49 PM
#64
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
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 | 01:52 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
In all seriousness, it is sad how they come out of the wood works--even tag teaming at times--beating a dead horse.
One of them even berated the QOL issue vis a vis pay rates. Eg., the claim was that the QOL folks never can come to consensus about what that means, but then demand a 22% raise. Straw men is what it is.
Can anyone remind me of a time when the TVM folks harp on something other than Section 3? Serious question.
One of them even berated the QOL issue vis a vis pay rates. Eg., the claim was that the QOL folks never can come to consensus about what that means, but then demand a 22% raise. Straw men is what it is.
Can anyone remind me of a time when the TVM folks harp on something other than Section 3? Serious question.
03-13-2016 | 03:21 PM
#66
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
In all seriousness, it is sad how they come out of the wood works--even tag teaming at times--beating a dead horse.
One of them even berated the QOL issue vis a vis pay rates. Eg., the claim was that the QOL folks never can come to consensus about what that means, but then demand a 22% raise. Straw men is what it is.
Can anyone remind me of a time when the TVM folks harp on something other than Section 3? Serious question.
One of them even berated the QOL issue vis a vis pay rates. Eg., the claim was that the QOL folks never can come to consensus about what that means, but then demand a 22% raise. Straw men is what it is.
Can anyone remind me of a time when the TVM folks harp on something other than Section 3? Serious question.
Good point.
Section 3 is all that matters if you're offline and the only part of the PWA that really applies to you is Section 3 pay tables and GS pay.
03-13-2016 | 04:24 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
Inquired directly to both of my a reps regarding this matter, and both have told me that the meeting with the NMB was very productive. Specifically the amount of money the company is making hurts their position especially considering the sacrifices made by the pilot group during bankruptcy. No timeline has been set beyond that because negotiations are still ongoing.
What have you heard to the contrary? Any details? Let's compare notes.
What have you heard to the contrary? Any details? Let's compare notes.
03-13-2016 | 05:39 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
Here is what Harwood, Hanson, Curls and the rest of the Apple Dumpling Gang don't understand.
Strike Committeek is up and funded.
Informational picketing will follow.
Mediation the 30 day cooling off period.
Then a strike.
Management has no interest in any of that. They stand to make tens of millions more from labor peace while American, United and Southwest implode.
We will get the PWA we deserve.
Period.
Strike Committeek is up and funded.
Informational picketing will follow.
Mediation the 30 day cooling off period.
Then a strike.
Management has no interest in any of that. They stand to make tens of millions more from labor peace while American, United and Southwest implode.
We will get the PWA we deserve.
Period.
03-13-2016 | 06:32 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 187
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.
It's both...can't you see that...apparently not. We were getting a crap deal on QOL, and the company and our sorry ass NC, Donatelli, et al...were giving us a pay raise by robbing Peter to pay Paul in spite of historic profits AFTER the pilot group had already given up so much.
FreeMason...I bet you only let your kids play in leagues where ever kid gets a trophy. Have a pair and don't accept third place. By asking for, and going for the best doesn't mean we are bullies. We don't get what we don't ask for or negotiate for. The company asked and negotiated that crap NA15....you gotta start somewhere.
Last but not least, Delta, like other airlines are losing 8,000 pilots off our seniority list in the next 10 years. We need a good contract to attract pilots to put on the seniority list, and into a seat. Corporate Recruiting 101....to get the best talent, you have to pay for it.
