Originally Posted by buckleyboy (Post 2088164)

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!

Originally Posted by Free Mason (Post 2088025)

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.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2088346)

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.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 2088464)

The tax would have to pass congress.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 2088464)

The tax would have to pass congress.

Originally Posted by Free Mason (Post 2088020)

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.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1943295)

We have to stop thinking like this is the 1970s.

Follow me here --

Fact: The Delta pilots are NEVER going to be released by the NMB.

There are no circumstances where that will ever happen. Industry consolidation has made that a certainty. We are too big and too important to the national economy. We are a public utility. There will not be a Delta pilot strike. Ever.

Therefore: The NMB is irrelevant. What they think is reasonable has no bearing on our negotiations. ALPA only uses them as an excuse. Those days have to end. We have to start using the leverage we have outside of the RLA process. There are plenty of legal things we can do.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1897969)

Shiznit-
I don't know what's in this TA and therefore can't tell you if I'm for it or against it. But I do know one thing. The argument you make in that post really irritates me.

I'm mighty tired of my union being 100% passive, compliant and scared.
Scared of Anderson, scared of the NMB and scared of their own shadow.
And what's worse is using that fear as a weapon to control the membership.
We are not SWA or FDX or AMR.

There are plenty of things we can legally do to exert pressure on management to bargain in good faith. They seem to place great value on their success at taking labor risk off the table at Delta. The first thing we could do is start acting like a real union and put that risk right back on the table. FAST. And in a BIG WAY.

If this TA were to be rejected and Mr. Anderson stops bargaining in good faith and says he's going to go the "traditional route" (putting us "on ice" for years) the first thing we should announce is that we are putting him on ice and making it the #1 goal of ALPA to organize and unionize the flight attendants and mechanics and every other labor group on this property.

ALPA has had an official policy of letting the other employee groups twist in the wind while incompetent organization drives sputtered and stalled and failed. That policy of helping management defeat the other unions would end immediately. And you know what? I think we would succeed. We could have about 3 more unions at this company within a year. I think that might get management's attention.

And that would only be the first thing I would do. There's about 8 more.

So please knock it off with the "fear factor" posts -- telling pilots that if we don't capitulate to management's every wish then we will have to wait years to get a new contract. Its not true. We are NOT helpless. We CAN say no to management demands without getting put on ice.

I know ALPA doesn't want to abandon Moakism and the whole constructive relationship with management. Its been good for ALPA. It saves them a lot of money. But there comes a point when the pilots might have to stand up and defend ourselves. Whether ALPA likes it or not. We may have reached that point. We'll see on Tuesday.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1874125)

I agree, and picketing is one of the more gentle forms of protest.
There are plenty of things we can do to express our displeasure.
We don't need permission from the NMB to re-introduce "labor risk" on this property.

The NMB has essentially re-written the Railway Labor Act. They've eliminated the original dispute resolution process and set themselves up as a regulator of the rates of pay and working conditions in our industry. ALPA and the airlines have gone along with that. They both find it useful.

I would argue that by doing away with RLA self help, the NMB has made themselves irrelevant. They have zero credibility. We shouldn't pay any attention to them at all. We should go around them. (legally of course)

We're committed right now though.
We'll see if the ALPA "constructive" approach finally pays off with C2015.
I hope it does. But if not....

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2088510)

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

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 2088043)

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

Originally Posted by Cubdrick (Post 2086471)

You might note that you have already lost the orange lanyard unity war; if management sees someone with an orange lanyard they can either think the pilot is on board with the union or just afraid to be harassed by the Council 66 goon squad. “Join me or else” is not unity it’s blackmail.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 2088296)

Mediation the 30 day cooling off period.

Then a strike.