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.

What did the DALMEC Com twitter feed post from the EFA Brief this last week? How much have we seen year over year in fuel savings? How much is our profit projected to be this year (Not CTX capital but DAL's statements in their earnings reports) and how does that compare to the years past?

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.

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.

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?

He was gone either way. Its comes down to how you want to conduct yourself going in to mediation.

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.

Mediation? I thought it was straight to a PEB?

Pure hogwash.

What is your agenda?

Rumor only, the Head of the NMB has already met with the new reps. The reps did not like what they heard. Hope it's a bad rumor!!

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.

Rumor only....there are werewolves roaming the tree line around Virginia Avenue.

Nu

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.

Money or QOL, NO, money and QOL it's both. The tired TVM argument is trumped by TVNC. I will make more money by exploiting my time off if I choose than the sorry TA or any give on QOL. Profit sharing ensures I am compensated for the outsourcing as well, it will not be touched. With the upcoming training churn there will be ample opportunity to make more money under our current agreement.

TVNC = time value of no concessions

That's the exact opposite of what the reps have said.

Agenda post much?


Pathetic.

Details please!

The reps did not say they didn't like what they heard. The exact opposite of what you said.

Already missing the rep life?

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.

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.

His screen name says it all.

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.

It is bad because a longer contract means our opportunities to negotiate become less frequent. We are unable to capitalize on the time value of gains.

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!

Got phone?.....

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.

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.

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.

I like the type of "rumor" that begins with a rep over a j/s, f/a, neighbor, or crew bus. Thanks DeadHead!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

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.

The flip side of that, is management will be willing to spend more on longer duration. So it is up to the union negotiators to make an educated guess as to where they believe the industry is headed. If you ask me, I would take longer duration for more pay right now, I'm pretty good at predicting the market. That said, I would wait till the 2016 election is settled, if Bernie gets in, some pilots will see up to a 30% tax increase on take home pay, so that will have to be considered in the negotiation.

No one is indispensable. It is time and appropriate that new relationships be forged. They (the NMB) will work with whomever is at the table.

The tax would have to pass congress.

And a few rounds of (insert favorite round here!):eek:

That doesn't mean you shouldn't ask for another 30% just for insurance purposes. :D

We've heard all this fear mongering before. Its the whole reason you Moakies were voted out.
Its not gonna fly anymore.

We can go the Check Essential route and completely ignore the NMB.
THE NMB IS IRRELEVANT!!

Here's a couple posts from last summer when shiznit was doing the same thing telling us how we need to cower in fear at what the NMB might do --

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/de...ml#post1943295

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...ml#post1897969

Damn right. Good point.

They are just trying to spread fear, it's all they know and all they have left in their bag of tricks.

Rich can't see the forest for the trees. Thats why the smartest guy in the room would say something this stupid and misguided.

He is so obsessed with ALPA politics he has no idea what the Delta pilot thinks, yet somehow he knows exactly what management thinks.

Rich let me make it clear to you, I wear an orange lanyard because my MEC chairman has written a sincere letter asking me to. Not because I am afraid of some union goon squad. Not because I am being blackmailed. Don't be so condescending, naive, and presumptuous.

When do you think we will be allowed to strike?