No 3B.4. Grievance
03-16-2016, 04:36 AM
#41
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by scambo1
I'm not sure if that's a personal attack or actually what that was. I'll take that as an endorsement.
03-16-2016, 05:16 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,225
Originally Posted by scambo1
I'm not sure if that's a personal attack or actually what that was. I'll take that as an endorsement.
03-16-2016, 02:50 PM
#43
Wind the clock beoch
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by formerdal
God you are a pain. I have yet to read a positive post from you since you have been on this forum. He is willing to get on here and explain himself outright. No negativity like the other guys, willing to take calls and explain his position. I give him credit for all of that. I bet he would have no problem doing the same in person. Call him, I dare you!
Are going to stop being a jerk? I'm going to keep asking you until you answer...when will you find something productive to say? All you seem to be able to do is criticize or come up with negative comments. Frankly, you serve no purpose.
Sorry everyone, just couldn't take it any more...
Are going to stop being a jerk? I'm going to keep asking you until you answer...when will you find something productive to say? All you seem to be able to do is criticize or come up with negative comments. Frankly, you serve no purpose.
Sorry everyone, just couldn't take it any more...
03-16-2016, 09:58 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Acl65, are you going to work at ALPA national? I'm going to keep asking until you answer.
Denny
03-16-2016, 10:37 PM
#45
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Already asked and answered. Post numbers 19 and 22 of this thread. Unless I'm missing something?
Denny
Denny
03-17-2016, 08:48 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,225
OK, so he definitively stated he is not looking or will not take an ALPA job at national. Got it.
I was wondering the same thing as those pensions at National are enticing. He seemed to always be a reliable vote when the old guard needed him.
Kingsley recall and the TA come to mind.
Glad I was wrong and am looking forward to his insight on here.
I was wondering the same thing as those pensions at National are enticing. He seemed to always be a reliable vote when the old guard needed him.
Kingsley recall and the TA come to mind.
Glad I was wrong and am looking forward to his insight on here.
03-18-2016, 09:04 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 105
>>those pensions at National are enticing<<
IIRC, the only pilot that gets a pension through National is the president.
Again IIRC, ACL was involved in trying to get the president's pension "right-sized".
Anyone who knows differently or has more deets, educate us all...
IIRC, the only pilot that gets a pension through National is the president.
Again IIRC, ACL was involved in trying to get the president's pension "right-sized".
Anyone who knows differently or has more deets, educate us all...
03-20-2016, 07:39 PM
#48
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Schwanker
OK, so he definitively stated he is not looking or will not take an ALPA job at national. Got it.
I was wondering the same thing as those pensions at National are enticing. He seemed to always be a reliable vote when the old guard needed him.
Kingsley recall and the TA come to mind.
Glad I was wrong and am looking forward to his insight on here.
I was wondering the same thing as those pensions at National are enticing. He seemed to always be a reliable vote when the old guard needed him.
Kingsley recall and the TA come to mind.
Glad I was wrong and am looking forward to his insight on here.
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.
03-21-2016, 01:43 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
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.
Delta is making profits no one could have ever envisioned on the backs of the Delta pilots over $15 Billion in concessions and counting.
In this environment you got a nickel of per diem, :15 minutes of pay, no credit vacation and you couldn't even come close to matching the flight attendants 4:45 training day and/or minimum day. All with severe concessions including yet again, SCOPE.
Tell us, did profits peak in 2015?
The latest AE had almost 900 names on it. Tell us again how the reduction in trips for first officers with LCA was not going to affect anyone.
You are the weakest link.
PS Do you have two $20s for a $10?
03-21-2016, 01:44 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
From Investors Business Daily
"The global airline (Delta) is benefiting from lower fuel prices and even operates its own oil refinery to cut operating costs. Wall Street sees Q1 profit soaring 189% to $1.30 a share, on top of a 36% jump in earnings per share in the same quarter in 2015. Analysts also see full-year profit up 48% to $6.82 a share."
Yes, up 48% for 2016.
"The global airline (Delta) is benefiting from lower fuel prices and even operates its own oil refinery to cut operating costs. Wall Street sees Q1 profit soaring 189% to $1.30 a share, on top of a 36% jump in earnings per share in the same quarter in 2015. Analysts also see full-year profit up 48% to $6.82 a share."
Yes, up 48% for 2016.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
