No 3B.4. Grievance
03-21-2016 | 08:21 AM
#61
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,247
Likes: 92
From: DAL 330
1) I will answer again, I have not asked nor have I been asked to anything at National.
2) I wrote the resolution to get the last BOD to review the president's annuity to that, if you came from a carrier that did not have a pension or an annuity, you got what you had at your carrier. IE a 401K. FDX is the only carrier out there that has a pension which is not frozen that is part of ALPA. The MEC passed it, it was sent to a review committee and their recommendations were presented and debated in Delegate Committee 1. They changed some of the tax stuff but my desires for this to get reworked did not happen. If I was still a rep, I would have written a resolution before this last MEC meeting, submitted it for MEC approval and started the process again. Why? Its the world we live in today and its the right thing to do.
3) I could write a book on why my final decision was to send the TA to you, but most do not want to relive the past and I respect that. It was not a home run, nothing close, it was a very difficult decision for many members of the MEC. We sent the NC back multiple times for more, and the company refused to move every time. They would not even let us move gains in to the pillars. To me that was telling.
It was TAed and which surprised me. At the end of the day, we elect the committee to be the ones in the room. The company was done, and if we were going to go down the road we are now traveling down, the pilot group had to willfully decide that. The data we had was not clear on this and the recommendation from the parliamentarian lawyer who has been doing this for 60 years was, leverage in this situation comes from the membership.
I conferred with the committee, the professional negotiators and a myriad of others. To a person given everything they saw and experienced we were in a spot where the pilot group needed to decide the path. If there was any way that turning this back at a very split MEC was going to yield better results I and some others would have done that. I recommended a "yes" vote because given everything I witnessed, and discussed with many reps, and others, there was no better deal in 48 hours or six to nine months away. My feeling was absent this deal, we would see the upheaval we have, loose many months at the table and find ourselves downrange quite a bit before talks seriously resumed. So far DAL has done everything they said they would do with a rejection of that deal. I was hoping that was a bluff, but so far its not. I wasn't going to rely on hope as a rep.
What it wasn't was a gamble on my political future, nor me giving up. I will not get in to polling data, etc, but I will state that I wanted more data and called for it in the April special meeting. It wasn't done. We didn't disregard what we had, not at all, and the concerns the pilot group had are the same ones many reps did. Turning this back 11-8 or 10-9 was not going to lead to a better deal and that is where we were. Given the significant resistance from the company it would have been a push at 19-0 No from the MEC. I mean that. Nothing is stronger than a pilot group down vote. Its leverage but it has to be used strategically. The negotiation was not pleasant at all. We said no to many things that would make what came in the TA seem like a walk in the park.
4) DAL's PRASM has been going down for many quarters. It was flat and no one else was near a deal. Like it love it or hate it, even in rejection our TA set the cost floor for SWAPA to get a deal and reject it, FDX to get a TA and pass it, and UAL to move up without having their costs out of line with the sector. The deals that pass help raise the corners of the house and the market has changed for the better since the deal, but IMHO none of that would have happened as quickly as it did if we did get to a TA, even if it was rejected.
Looking at profit, it should be noted that fuel is a savings of 5-6billion this year or 2/3rdds of the PTIX from last year. If our ability to price is the same we should be making 12-14 billion but we are not. Its still asinine money at the current profit level, but pricing power has ebbed a bunch. If fuel spikes and the ticket prices do not reflect the passthrough, the profit numbers will become effected. Duh!
If you look at FX (Foreign Exchange) DAL has over a 700 million dollar hit for the fact that the US Dollar is the strongest currency and they have lost pricing power overseas.
If you read the twitter comments from the EFA briefing that was given at the MEC meeting it paints a picture of what I saw last summer, not horrible but sluggish for the sector. DAL is a shining star, but they compete with these other carriers that are not performing as well, nor are they as deleveraged at DAL. IMHO, the last thing DAL wants is to go through a concessionary period again with its pilots, pushed a little too far with us, and we reacted. They do not want us to be a competitive advantage for other companies. They have stated clearly they want us to be top of the industry on costs, but only to a certain level. We as a group are willing to say no and fight for more.
It would have been nice for more than 55% of the pilot group to take the first survey and say that. Note that 55% of those that took the survey which was close to that number is in the low 30%. See a theme here? If you didn't take the survey the first time, it may have led to that willingness not coming through.
DAL is in a great position to whether the downturn that generally happens after a new US president is elected, and will likely remain well in to the black. What may change is DAL's willingness to add costs in that softening, if/when it occurs.
Yes, we "deserve" everything we are asking for, and quite frankly, this was not where our pilot group was a year and a half ago. With fuel going down as sharply as it did, I suspect it rose expectations much faster than the polling may have indicated. It still does not mean that DAL would have agreed to higher costs, but it does mean that the MEC would have been in a better position rejecting it.
Like I said, I am happy to discuss my rationale on any vote. Give me a call.
2) I wrote the resolution to get the last BOD to review the president's annuity to that, if you came from a carrier that did not have a pension or an annuity, you got what you had at your carrier. IE a 401K. FDX is the only carrier out there that has a pension which is not frozen that is part of ALPA. The MEC passed it, it was sent to a review committee and their recommendations were presented and debated in Delegate Committee 1. They changed some of the tax stuff but my desires for this to get reworked did not happen. If I was still a rep, I would have written a resolution before this last MEC meeting, submitted it for MEC approval and started the process again. Why? Its the world we live in today and its the right thing to do.
3) I could write a book on why my final decision was to send the TA to you, but most do not want to relive the past and I respect that. It was not a home run, nothing close, it was a very difficult decision for many members of the MEC. We sent the NC back multiple times for more, and the company refused to move every time. They would not even let us move gains in to the pillars. To me that was telling.
It was TAed and which surprised me. At the end of the day, we elect the committee to be the ones in the room. The company was done, and if we were going to go down the road we are now traveling down, the pilot group had to willfully decide that. The data we had was not clear on this and the recommendation from the parliamentarian lawyer who has been doing this for 60 years was, leverage in this situation comes from the membership.
I conferred with the committee, the professional negotiators and a myriad of others. To a person given everything they saw and experienced we were in a spot where the pilot group needed to decide the path. If there was any way that turning this back at a very split MEC was going to yield better results I and some others would have done that. I recommended a "yes" vote because given everything I witnessed, and discussed with many reps, and others, there was no better deal in 48 hours or six to nine months away. My feeling was absent this deal, we would see the upheaval we have, loose many months at the table and find ourselves downrange quite a bit before talks seriously resumed. So far DAL has done everything they said they would do with a rejection of that deal. I was hoping that was a bluff, but so far its not. I wasn't going to rely on hope as a rep.
What it wasn't was a gamble on my political future, nor me giving up. I will not get in to polling data, etc, but I will state that I wanted more data and called for it in the April special meeting. It wasn't done. We didn't disregard what we had, not at all, and the concerns the pilot group had are the same ones many reps did. Turning this back 11-8 or 10-9 was not going to lead to a better deal and that is where we were. Given the significant resistance from the company it would have been a push at 19-0 No from the MEC. I mean that. Nothing is stronger than a pilot group down vote. Its leverage but it has to be used strategically. The negotiation was not pleasant at all. We said no to many things that would make what came in the TA seem like a walk in the park.
4) DAL's PRASM has been going down for many quarters. It was flat and no one else was near a deal. Like it love it or hate it, even in rejection our TA set the cost floor for SWAPA to get a deal and reject it, FDX to get a TA and pass it, and UAL to move up without having their costs out of line with the sector. The deals that pass help raise the corners of the house and the market has changed for the better since the deal, but IMHO none of that would have happened as quickly as it did if we did get to a TA, even if it was rejected.
Looking at profit, it should be noted that fuel is a savings of 5-6billion this year or 2/3rdds of the PTIX from last year. If our ability to price is the same we should be making 12-14 billion but we are not. Its still asinine money at the current profit level, but pricing power has ebbed a bunch. If fuel spikes and the ticket prices do not reflect the passthrough, the profit numbers will become effected. Duh!
If you look at FX (Foreign Exchange) DAL has over a 700 million dollar hit for the fact that the US Dollar is the strongest currency and they have lost pricing power overseas.
If you read the twitter comments from the EFA briefing that was given at the MEC meeting it paints a picture of what I saw last summer, not horrible but sluggish for the sector. DAL is a shining star, but they compete with these other carriers that are not performing as well, nor are they as deleveraged at DAL. IMHO, the last thing DAL wants is to go through a concessionary period again with its pilots, pushed a little too far with us, and we reacted. They do not want us to be a competitive advantage for other companies. They have stated clearly they want us to be top of the industry on costs, but only to a certain level. We as a group are willing to say no and fight for more.
It would have been nice for more than 55% of the pilot group to take the first survey and say that. Note that 55% of those that took the survey which was close to that number is in the low 30%. See a theme here? If you didn't take the survey the first time, it may have led to that willingness not coming through.
DAL is in a great position to whether the downturn that generally happens after a new US president is elected, and will likely remain well in to the black. What may change is DAL's willingness to add costs in that softening, if/when it occurs.
Yes, we "deserve" everything we are asking for, and quite frankly, this was not where our pilot group was a year and a half ago. With fuel going down as sharply as it did, I suspect it rose expectations much faster than the polling may have indicated. It still does not mean that DAL would have agreed to higher costs, but it does mean that the MEC would have been in a better position rejecting it.
Like I said, I am happy to discuss my rationale on any vote. Give me a call.
ACL,
Thanks for jumping back in and sharing your thoughts. A couple of points:
I agree a vote from the Pilots is better than the MEC voting no. In my opinion a better move would have been to have the NC pack up and leave.
DAL is most certainly not doing everything they said they would with a rejection. As pointed out they quickly went out and purchased the 190s and additional 737s. In other words this was a bluff plain and simply.
Before you say it - things changed making the deal even better. I know things changed, things continually change, but the company did not say if you vote no we will not buy the 190s and 737s unless we get a better deal, they said a no vote meant no additional aircraft period.
If you guys thought the deal was mediocre but wanted the Pilots to vote - why the all out sales job?
Anyway water under the bridge - welcome back to APC.
Scoop
03-21-2016 | 11:00 AM
#62
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
ACL,
Thanks for jumping back in and sharing your thoughts. A couple of points:
I agree a vote from the Pilots is better than the MEC voting no. In my opinion a better move would have been to have the NC pack up and leave.
DAL is most certainly not doing everything they said they would with a rejection. As pointed out they quickly went out and purchased the 190s and additional 737s. In other words this was a bluff plain and simply.
Before you say it - things changed making the deal even better. I know things changed, things continually change, but the company did not say if you vote no we will not buy the 190s and 737s unless we get a better deal, they said a no vote meant no additional aircraft period.
If you guys thought the deal was mediocre but wanted the Pilots to vote - why the all out sales job?
Anyway water under the bridge - welcome back to APC.
Scoop
Thanks for jumping back in and sharing your thoughts. A couple of points:
I agree a vote from the Pilots is better than the MEC voting no. In my opinion a better move would have been to have the NC pack up and leave.
DAL is most certainly not doing everything they said they would with a rejection. As pointed out they quickly went out and purchased the 190s and additional 737s. In other words this was a bluff plain and simply.
Before you say it - things changed making the deal even better. I know things changed, things continually change, but the company did not say if you vote no we will not buy the 190s and 737s unless we get a better deal, they said a no vote meant no additional aircraft period.
If you guys thought the deal was mediocre but wanted the Pilots to vote - why the all out sales job?
Anyway water under the bridge - welcome back to APC.
Scoop
I flew with a certain higher up in December... he repeated the same line that they have followed through with everything that they said would happen. "We cancelled the aircraft order. That is a different aircraft order."
"but it's the same planes, right?"
"We cancelled the order. This one is different."
"Ok.... sure." They were absolutely convinced the TA went down on social media misinformation and if they had more time it would have passed. Couldn't grasp when I told him were it to go out to a vote again today it would probably be voted down by an even wider margin.
03-21-2016 | 11:35 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
From: 330 FO
I flew with a certain higher up in December... he repeated the same line that they have followed through with everything that they said would happen. "We cancelled the aircraft order. That is a different aircraft order."
"but it's the same planes, right?"
"We cancelled the order. This one is different."
"Ok.... sure."
They were absolutely convinced the TA went down on social media misinformation and if they had more time it would have passed. Couldn't grasp when I told him were it to go out to a vote again today it would probably be voted down by an even wider margin.
"but it's the same planes, right?"
"We cancelled the order. This one is different."
"Ok.... sure." They were absolutely convinced the TA went down on social media misinformation and if they had more time it would have passed. Couldn't grasp when I told him were it to go out to a vote again today it would probably be voted down by an even wider margin.
His amps probably go all the way to "11".
Because it's louder.
03-21-2016 | 11:38 AM
#64
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,247
Likes: 92
From: DAL 330
I flew with a certain higher up in December... he repeated the same line that they have followed through with everything that they said would happen. "We cancelled the aircraft order. That is a different aircraft order."
"but it's the same planes, right?"
"We cancelled the order. This one is different."
"Ok.... sure."
They were absolutely convinced the TA went down on social media misinformation and if they had more time it would have passed. Couldn't grasp when I told him were it to go out to a vote again today it would probably be voted down by an even wider margin.
"but it's the same planes, right?"
"We cancelled the order. This one is different."
"Ok.... sure." They were absolutely convinced the TA went down on social media misinformation and if they had more time it would have passed. Couldn't grasp when I told him were it to go out to a vote again today it would probably be voted down by an even wider margin.
You can not argue logically with a sycophant like that - it is pretty sad. I just don't know why they don't admit that they made a mistake. I would respect a rep a lot more if he would say "We did not think the company would go ahead with the 190s - we believed them - we were wrong."
This BS that they cancelled the order and this was a different order is somewhere between preposterous and pathetic. Does anyone at Delta fly or get paid by "aircraft orders?" Who GAS if they cancel order A and then go out and buy the same aircraft with order B?
Wow they sure showed us! I am really torn up that the 190s are coming via order B as I had my heart set on order A.
Do they actually think there is one line pilot out of the 13,000+ DAL Pilots that would actually buy that crap?Scoop
03-21-2016 | 12:03 PM
#65
looking for underboob
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 913
Likes: 4
From: NYC 7ER LCA
Couple of months ago I flew with a high power Mookie
He told me that I received bad info on TA. I then told him I ran the Contract committee at my regional in the past and I understood the TA pretty well.
He the told me I read it wrong and it was a huge mistake rejecting TA and we will never get anything close to it again.
Amazing
He told me that I received bad info on TA. I then told him I ran the Contract committee at my regional in the past and I understood the TA pretty well.
He the told me I read it wrong and it was a huge mistake rejecting TA and we will never get anything close to it again.
Amazing
03-21-2016 | 12:15 PM
#67
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
03-21-2016 | 12:43 PM
#68
looking for underboob
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 913
Likes: 4
From: NYC 7ER LCA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
