No 3B.4. Grievance
 

From the Meeting Highlights of the Chairman's report.

"Captain Malone discussed updates on resolutions, including the addition of an Retirement and Insurance staff member and the PWA Section 3 B.4. issue. It has been determined there is no good basis for a 3 B.4. grievance."

That only means the union will not fight the Dec. 1 event. 3.B.4. is alive and well. I just wish they would publish the findings.

Yes, per the contract they can...

Yes, this is an intentional deviation from the historical norm...

Yes, management is circumventing the intent of...

Yes, they are attempting to influence negotiations...

But we don't want to fight this fight and will get a raise equal to other Delta raises in the future.

The union leadership needs to say these thing to maintain credibility and loyalty.

I agree, you should hold your representatives accountable, and demand a clear and unambiguous statement from your representatives on this issue.

Yes, per the contract they can because....

Yes, this is an intentional deviation from the historical norm which we have decided to not fight because.....

Yes, management is circumventing the intent of the contract and they can with regards to 3B4 because......

Yes, they are attempting to influence negotiations, but they are allowed to circumvent what we believe is the intent because.....

The last we heard officially from the union was this (which appears now to be an honest assessment):

Myth: By rejecting this TA, Section 3 B. 4. language remains in effect giving us 3 percent raises in the future.

Fact: Section 3 B. 4. triggers a review of pilot wages if the Company gives a raise to the other employees. Should they decide to give a raise to others this year, no pay increase for the pilots would occur. We have already had our comparison in April, which matched the AMR/UAL 757 rate and resulted in a .55 percent raise. If they give a bonus to employees instead of a pay raise next year-no review is triggered. If they do it again in 2017,again, there is no review. Nobody should hang their hat on a clause inserted to examine other people’s pay.

Also Fact:

With the gains by UAL in January the 757 comparison will be in excess of the other employee pay rate increases, thereby ensuring our raise will occur at the same time and at the same percentage amount of the other employees raises. This would have been 3% prior to the new UAL payrates, now it has the potential to match a higher amount. (Sounds like your myth to me.)

Note:

Under C2012 this will happen annually with every raise the non-cons get going forward without concessions.

In my opinion, rate increases will happen in 2017 and annually after that as the company returns to normal raises. The profit sharing amount next year will be less than this year for the non-cons. If a bonus is paid in 2017, that will only make worse a year long negotiation and the swindling of pay away from pilots. This will ruin any goodwill that may be left. This will devolve over the next year for the company. I hope they take action to prevent that.

Yes, in this case it sounds like a myth, since we apparently aren't getting either the new 757 generated rate, or the other employees raises unless the company gives the other employees another pay raise.

Do you think the other employee will never get another raise? It's not if but when. This is an effective clause for prolonged negotiations. It could be better but this is what we have from the previous contract negotiations. Maybe just a straight annual review of the industry average or a straight me too for the "cola type" non-con raises is what we should have gotten.

We are stuck with what we have for now, and it will provide raises.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether the other employees get pay raises or bonuses, but given the size of the pay raises they received in 2015, I don't see Delta giving them another for quite a while. They could easily go 2-3 years without a pay raise, particularly since they are now only making about 18% more than last year, but still have a profit sharing plan, albeit reduced. Let's say they give them a 3% raise in 2018, we would receive the smaller of industry average, or what the other employees got, in this example it would be a 3% non retro active bump in 2018.

Just to add to this discussion - DAL can give the non-contracts unlimited bonuses and the Pilots will get two things...............jack and squat.

Unfortunately the 3.B.5 clause "Me too for bonuses" ended last December.

5. If, in any calendar year, the Company awards a bonus or lump sum payment other than a
24 base pay rate increase (and other than a payment pursuant to the Company profit-sharing
25 plan and/or the performance incentive plan, and/or an equity grant or issuance or other
26 consideration specified in the Plan of Reorganization) to U.S.-based non-pilot
27 workgroups covering 30% or more of its non-pilot U.S.-based workforce, then the pilots
28 will receive a bonus or lump sum payment equal to the highest across the board bonus or
29 lump sum payment granted to any major non-pilot work group (i.e., reservation agents,
30 flight attendants, AMTs, ACS agents). For example, if AMTs receive a $500 bonus and
31 Customer Service Agents receive a $300 bonus, then the pilots would receive the $500
32 bonus.
33 Note: This provision will terminate on December 31, 2015.





I would not depend on a raise via 3.B.4.

Scoop :cool:

The front line employee raises to their rates equates to about 3.5 years worth of historical rate increases.

When the non-cons get their next raise, we will get the same raise.

True or False?

And the next raise... And the next... etc.

The timing is entirely up to management, I agree. Let's not forget management is the party that took this unprecedented action. It is their threat carried out. Only their actions caused the current situation regarding pilot pay rates. Only management can fix this. I am willing to wait for a much better deal. C2012 may not be the ideal contract but it will do until we get another one without concessions.

Welcome back acl !!

What's done is done. Its a new day.

We could really use your help getting this new contract. I hope you'll join us.

Very few people have the depth of knowledge and recent experience that you possess when it comes to this whole process.
Unfortunately some of those people are choosing not to support the new MEC.

We are where we are. I am looking forward to hearing your perspective on how best to move on from here.

Given his actions, not likely.

I will be curious to see how he posts though and I'll be looking to see if he has an orange lanyard around his neck.

Unlike Curly and some of the other bitter bomb throwers, acl is pretty young.
He has a long time left at Delta.

I'm optimistic that his approach to the future will be different than theirs.

I had hope for him as a next generation leader but he turned pretty quickly. Only time will tell but he no longer has my support.

Fool me once...

+1

. . . . . . .

There's plenty of people that can bear witness to that.

Not sure what actions you refer to, and everyone has their own opinions. I am happy to explain my votes to anyone and the rationale that went behind them. Noting was ever flippant nor without extensive analysis. Never made a vote without a ton of research on alternate options either. Check knows me, and we have topically discussed much of this.

I can only speak for myself and that is what I am doing. Good luck with whatever future endeavors you seek. I don't think any benefit will come of this discussion so I will leave it as is.

I am curious though, do you wear your orange ALPA lanyard? Reading it directly and then observing it might give hope.

Welcome back!

Are you getting a job at ALPA national?

Yes, I am wearing it. I want this MEC successful, we all work under the same contract. I voted no in 2012 and frankly do not want to work under it as some people do. Many of the one off fixes that were part of the TA were items that I wanted fixed in 2012.

I compel you to give me a call. My number is in DBMS. I will talk on any issue as long as you like. I will answer the questions as fully as I can. Perception or the assigning of motives in the forum world are often not what drives ones decisions, and are almost always false.

I voted for Malone. I was one of a handful of votes he had before the election meeting started.

I voted for every member of the Negotiating Committee that got elected.

I want this MEC insanely successful. Do not forget that the previous MEC set the redirection.

I will leave it at this. Contrary to popular belief, my personal desires and what was best for me politically took/take a back seat to what my individual analysis and the memberships desires were/are. The survey is aspirational and nature. We did not hit everything but to say it was disregarded is hogwash. In the redo, there is no way the new MEC will get everything. Don't hold them to that. Its never happened, ever.

You also agreed with my decision to send the TA to the membership.

How best:

The die is cast, "WE" collectively voted no in a democratic process. The decision was a we decision. We can point fingers all day long on this or that, and what the pilots did or did not believe. Right now one thing is fore-certain, none of that will get us a new contract. Mistakes were made on both sides last time. Lessons have been learned by all. Anyone who says differently is not being honest. Mistakes will be made this time. With a lot of changeover, its inevitable.

The difference is last time the impetus was to get the best deal we could quickly. It was an opportunity for another early deal. We passed on it. That's fine, we now go the more traditional route. That likely will take time, and that was clearly stated last year to the MEC. Now the new MEC just needs to get a deal the pilot group will support and can wait as long as it takes because the pilots choose the path.

We went back multiple times and could not even move value. Everyone that was in the room said the company was truly done. We had a split MEC. That is a path to nowhere fast. All of these were significant data points in my decision. So was my personal industry and macro analysis.

Should we have walked away? no. The company likely did not believe that the pilot group was where we said it was. They now know, but to date that has not changed their position on where the value added limit is. The TA had to be seen and voted on by the membership and the path had to be chosen by all of us. It was, and now we have to get a deal that all of us will support.

There is a path here, and I am sure that the Strategic Planning committee chaired by Art Aaron has laid or will lay out a path for the MEC to agree or disagree with. If I was to offer advice to the MEC it would be to listen to these individuals on the strat planning and negotiating committee. They are the people in the room who live this day in and day out, not the reps.


The company likely has made a cost-risk analysis and will take risk over cost beyond a certain level. It is the negotiators job to find that line. That line moves with the economy and the industry trends. If the company believes that the negotiators have the authority to TA a deal and that the MEC is empowered by the pilots to negotiate on their behalf, I believe the company will start seriously negotiating. More familiarity with the NC and MEC will provide that proof.

Having the company take a read at a MEC meeting with the meet and greet is a very good idea. The company is honest and frank with the MEC, and the MEC can be honest and frank with them. The MEC does not negotiate with the company but body language is important.

I personally want the new MEC insanely successful. I prefer to be rich than right. Its a negotiation, and not a demand based system. The NMB makes both parties engage in interest based bargaining and if that is not witnessed they see no path to a deal.

I strongly suspect there is a better deal to be had, but its not 22% with none of the company's desires being addressed. They will never sign on the line, nor will they be forced to by the NMB. Its not the rejected TA either. Its in the middle somewhere. (I will not be specific on where I see the deal because everyone reads this) Polling is now continuous as it should have been last year, and some asked for that. It will show the peaks and valleys of the pilots desires. It will help time when the right time for a deal to be TAed is.

65-35 provides leverage, and its the best leverage there is, but it must be used to get a deal that can be made. Not one that we all desire but the company would never agree too. Knowing the difference is leadership, and I compel and support our new MEC to find that deal.

Nope. Not doing any ALPA work at this time. Doesn't mean I am not willing or will not do work again at some time, but for now, I am catching up on three years of delayed projects at my house.

My point is, if you look at the raises given to the other employees since the merger, the Dec raise was 3.5 years of raises if you average those historical raises.

You seem to forget that I irritated plenty of people on that side of the issues too.

http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.77709...x200,white.jpg

Good call.
No point in rehashing 2015.

Let's concentrate on the future.

Delta Air Lines is printing money. Insane amounts of money.
Ed Bastian is sitting on tons of cash. So much that he can't figure out what to do with it all.
How can we convince him some of that cash is rightfully ours?
That's the only question that matters now.

Thanks for your support of the new MEC, ACL. The experience of the last eight months could have embittered you like it did a few other former ALPA volunteers; I'm glad to see it hasn't. I've been saying for a while now that a pilot group that is 65% unified isn't very unified at all. Time for us all to move on together. I'm not terribly interested in rehashing TA2015 for the umpteenth time. About two-thirds of us decided the net package wasn't enough and we were willing to risk going a more traditional route to try and get more. Will we? Time will tell, I guess. But there's no question in my mind that *any* chance of success with the traditional route will require the sort of pilot group unity that management can see and feel. Glad to see you're on board. :)

Yes, it can't be undone and that deal is gone. Now that I am in the cheap seats I can be critical as well.:D I still do all my own analysis and will continue to follow all of it just like it did, prior and during the last bit.

I would have preferred to continue the work but I am not going to be upset that I am not currently making the decisions. Everything happens for a reason, and I am not one to get locked up in the past. I just want product over politics, and to do that does means that some will go after seated reps if they make difficult decisions. It goes with the territory.

We are where we are, so lets compel our reps to get to a point where the deal exists and be leaders. They do that, I am fully supportive.

Oh and if you don't donate to ALPA PAC. My personal opinion is the events in HND happened because we at the DAL pilot group were focused inward.(UAL has a Japanese partner and it does not effect FDX, its a DALPA issue) We need to have focus inward and outward. The Status quo of the last half of a decade was done way with very quickly. The first opportunity that was presented was used. We need to use that as a lesson.

Its a lesson on what could happen with the ME3. That one will be irreversible and much worse.

ACL it's good to see you back here. Thanks for jumping into the ring and working for us when many would rather criticize. In the past, your 'dot-connecting' was very interesting and I hope you resume it for us here. Best wishes for the future,

tripled

Acl65, are you going to work at ALPA national? I'm going to keep asking until you answer.

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...

I thought it was a fair question. Many were interested in the reasons for his support behind 2015. Was it for self promotion within ALPA or that he thought it was a good deal for the pilot group. People had concerns.

I want to know why my reps vote one way or another. Also, there was mention he supported TA2015 partially because our operating margins were deteriorating. I'm curious where this information came from as the message to Wall Street is margins keep improving--significantly. It was not time to cave on profit sharing.

That whole "sign it fast because the sky is falling" schtick was coming from our former "Strategic Planning" guys.
Management whispered it in their ear. That's all it took. They bought it.

I hope we never fall for that type of manipulation again.
That's why I've always been skeptical of the NDAs that all the ALPA guys sign.

I'm cautiously optimistic that our new guys won't fall into the Moakist mindset of thinking they are some kind of "junior executive" types just because Richard and Ed come to the meetings and pretend to share some top secret intel.
Its all done for a purpose. Its my belief that they never tell our union guys anything of significance in closed sessions that they wouldn't tell them anyway.

The non-disclosure agreements are just a way to make our union guys feel like they are part of some corporate inner circle and therefore responsible for helping management achieve their cost control goals.

Check, my feelings precisely.

Before becoming a US representative to a foreign government, I was put thru extensive training by our government. One of the key items taught was:

"You are not being treated the way you are treated because of who you are. But, instead because of the position you hold."

When I left the position, shock! All the invitations dried up.

Another thing taught was how to deal with the press.

And another...the three things that will get you into irrecoverable trouble are booze, broads, and bucks.

DALPA should spend time teaching these important lessons to reps at all levels. Not just a seminar.

I think he serves a valuable purpose and I look forward to his posts.

I am just tired of all his negativity...

Think of it as critically thought out harshness.

Drank serves a purpose.

Drank posts what people are thinking...but are too polite to post. He just dives in a "goes there".

Like him, hate him...he serves a purpose as these negotiations go on.

Just like Trump, yet he's still an orange headed Oompa Loompa azzhat!

I'm not sure if that's a personal attack or actually what that was. I'll take that as an endorsement.;)

Oompas are cool.