|
What I've heard from a mix of the 7 and 12 is just what you stated, Scoop. When not pressured to hold a political line they say reality is in between and much more realistic.
|
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2184353)
If we got that rate, and -as you say- the DAL 767s won't be in the same solar system as UPS's, how do you then justify paying the 76 UPS+ when it would put our 777s out somewhere with Voyager? The 777s deserve to be way out of whack relative to everyone else? Bullsqueeze. If they do, so does everyone else.
The point is, you are cherrypicking a contract that is vastly different than ours. Tell me how you plan on rectifying that. I don't have to rectify a dang thing to you. I never said to pay more than UPS, (as you say?)I was just saying that the alluded to 28% pay rate isn't in the same solar system. I was making a comparison Don't put your words into my comments and cherry pick what you want. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2184357)
This is the problem. We are hearing two distinctively different versions coming from the MEC:
From the Dirty Dozen - The company has barely moved of its inadequate last offer. If this is the case No brainer, keep at it and come back when we get a better offer. From the Magnificent 7 - We are within reach of a very good deal but internal squabbles may prevent us from bringing it to fruition. Also a No brainer - Bring us a TA and let the Pilots decide. The problem is both of these stories can not be true. My bet is its probably somewhere in between. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Dat jet
(Post 2184405)
I don't have to rectify a dang thing to you. I never said to pay more than UPS, (as you say?)I was just saying that the alluded to 28% pay rate isn't in the same solar system. Reading Comprehension......
Don't put your words into my comments and cherry pick what you want. Well done. Well done indeed:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2184410)
Well OK then.. You just throw out numbers, just to throw them out with absolutely no thinking behind what they mean and how they relate to the other parts of the contract. So what is sticking to the wall?
Well done. Well done indeed:rolleyes: Have a blessed day!! |
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184195)
It seems that the MEC is (against the advice of the NC, the administration, the attorneys, and the NMB) passing up a great deal to try for the perfect deal (which doesn't exist).
|
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184195)
I agree that we are in a sweet spot. I agree that we shouldn't waste it, as those of us who were here for the bad times know that those sweet spots don't last forever. Ask the APA in 2001.
It seems that the MEC is (against the advice of the NC, the administration, the attorneys, and the NMB) passing up a great deal to try for the perfect deal (which doesn't exist). If we waste this fleeting opportunity, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves. |
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 2184440)
This is factually incorrect and revisionist history. Just like Buzz's report.
|
And you can do the same.
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184451)
Actually, it isn't. You can choose to believe me or not, but it doesn't change the truth.
|
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 2184461)
And you can do the same.
|
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 2184440)
This is factually incorrect and revisionist history. Just like Buzz's report.
Probably some truth in Buzz's report along with opinions posted as facts and outright BS, I have heard directly from Reps in both camps. Their versions are not compatible. The whole thing is a mess with neither side taking the high road and the Pilot group (me include) not knowing what to believe. If anyone thinks one group is comprised of Saintly do-gooders fighting valiantly for the Pilot group and the other side is evil obstructionists only trying to further a hidden agenda then they are fools. The Reps and complete DALPA administration are being torn in multiple directions by many things - not every Rep/DALPA staffer has the same motivations but they probably all have a few of these items on their mind: Doing what think is best for the Pilot group. Doing what they think is achievable. Doing what they think the majority of Pilots want. Keeping promises. Possible future ALPA/DALPA positions for themselves. Leaving/killing DALPA. Feel free to add to the above list. The bottom line is if DALPA doesn't get its act together the big losers will be us - the Pilot group. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2184473)
Probably some truth in Buzz's report along with opinions posted as facts and outright BS, I have heard directly from Reps in both camps. Their versions are not compatible.
The whole thing is a mess with neither side taking the high road and the Pilot group (me include) not knowing what to believe. If anyone thinks one group is comprised of Saintly do-gooders fighting valiantly for the Pilot group and the other side is evil obstructionists only trying to further a hidden agenda then they are fools. The Reps and complete DALPA administration are being torn in multiple directions by many things - not every Rep/DALPA staffer has the same motivations but they probably all have a few of these items on their mind: Doing what think is best for the Pilot group. Doing what they think is achievable. Doing what they think the majority of Pilots want. Keeping promises. Possible future ALPA/DALPA positions for themselves. Leaving/killing DALPA. Feel free to add to the above list. The bottom line is if DALPA doesn't get its act together the big losers will be us - the Pilot group. Scoop We should be asking ourselves this, though: By sending us home, is the NMB warning/punishing us or the company? Do we think the attorneys, administration, and NC would reach a logical conclusion? Do you think they would pass that conclusion on to the reps? Which side does it sound like ignored the advice of the people they hired/elected? |
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184491)
All fair points. Agree completely.
We should be asking ourselves this, though: By sending us home, is the NMB warning/punishing us or the company? Do we think the attorneys, administration, and NC would reach a logical conclusion? Do you think they would pass that conclusion on to the reps? Which side does it sound like ignored the advice of the people they hired/elected? |
Btw, where is the efin leadership? Nothing, NADA from JM.
|
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 2184510)
Btw, where is the efin leadership? Nothing, NADA from JM.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2184508)
The NMB does this as a matter of course, which is why we put it in the PWA to go to them jointly only 4 months into the process. That gets the clock running. The illusion that this will be quick is part of your agenda. The only way we get a quick deal is if it favors management.
|
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 2184510)
Btw, where is the efin leadership? Nothing, NADA from JM.
|
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184537)
I beg to differ. Management would be more than happy keeping the current deal for as long as they possibly can.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2184595)
So you are saying we can get a quick deal that benefits the pilots greatly but management would like to keep what we have? :confused:
Focus on the payrates and ignore all the concessions... |
Originally Posted by Viking busdvr
(Post 2184600)
You just have to focus notEnuf, focus!!
Focus on the payrates and ignore all the concessions... https://static.dreamstime.com/t/thin...e-30738974.jpg |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2184508)
The NMB does this as a matter of course, which is why we put it in the PWA to go to them jointly only 4 months into the process. That gets the clock running. The illusion that this will be quick is part of your agenda. The only way we get a quick deal is if it favors management.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2184615)
That is certainly a change from forum sentiment a year ago. Everyone said that management was desperate for a agreement and the only reason TA15 was not vastly better was a MEC corrupted and in managements pocket. All we needed was to show a little resolve and they would throw money at us because they had to have a agreement and we had huge leverage.
The claim is that we have doubled the value of the failed TA. I have no idea if this is correct. My judgement of a TA will not be on the multiple of a failure but on RESORATION. I suspect that we have increased our leverage or the company wouldn't offer twice the previous value. That however is with several sections to go and an undefined profit sharing grab. The only reason the TA was not better was because the previous MEC was not willing to fight for more. They took the easy way out and defended it with a TVM argument. There is no set timeline and your desire for one doesn't change that fact. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2184627)
If you can show where I posted that, I'll acknowledge it. I don't think you will.
The claim is that we have doubled the value of the failed TA. I have no idea if this is correct. My judgement of a TA will not be on the multiple of a failure but on RESORATION. I suspect that we have increased our leverage or the company wouldn't offer twice the previous value. That however is with several sections to go and an undefined profit sharing grab. The only reason the TA was not better was because the previous MEC was not willing to fight for more. They took the easy way out and defended it with a TVM argument. There is no set timeline and your desire for one doesn't change that fact. Well again what you post now is different then the forum sentiment a year ago. I have no idea where you come up with double the value of the failed TA. We have AIP's on less then 1% of the value in the contract. Managements table position on pay rates are 1% higher over the TA. The signing bonus was over 100 million and easily covers that 1%. At this point we are pennies ahead of TA15. I voted no on the TA however I did so expecting us to reengage the company ASAP, clean up the objectionable items and have a new TA in under 60 days. We could have easily accomplished that and produced a TA that will be within 2% of what we will eventually settle on be it next month or 3 years from now. We would have been starting preparations for the next contract this spring and exchanging openers in 18 months. In the end that approach would have produced more value for the pilots. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2184650)
Well again what you post now is different then the forum sentiment a year ago. I have no idea where you come up with double the value of the failed TA. We have AIP's on less then 1% of the value in the contract. Managements table position on pay rates are 1% higher over the TA. The signing bonus was over 100 million and easily covers that 1%. At this point we are pennies ahead of TA15.
I voted no on the TA however I did so expecting us to reengage the company ASAP, clean up the objectionable items and have a new TA in under 60 days. We could have easily accomplished that and produced a TA that will be within 2% of what we will eventually settle on be it next month or 3 years from now. We would have been starting preparations for the next contract this spring and exchanging openers in 18 months. In the end that approach would have produced more value for the pilots. Your argument justifies more now due to the delay. All of this is highly dependent on management accepting the reality that we are no longer in bankruptcy and in fact have exceeded all other industry standards for profitability over the last 3 years. When they realize there is a return due, is when we will get a deal. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2184473)
Probably some truth in Buzz's report along with opinions posted as facts and outright BS, I have heard directly from Reps in both camps. Their versions are not compatible.
The whole thing is a mess with neither side taking the high road and the Pilot group (me include) not knowing what to believe. If anyone thinks one group is comprised of Saintly do-gooders fighting valiantly for the Pilot group and the other side is evil obstructionists only trying to further a hidden agenda then they are fools. The Reps and complete DALPA administration are being torn in multiple directions by many things - not every Rep/DALPA staffer has the same motivations but they probably all have a few of these items on their mind: Doing what think is best for the Pilot group. Doing what they think is achievable. Doing what they think the majority of Pilots want. Keeping promises. Possible future ALPA/DALPA positions for themselves. Leaving/killing DALPA. Feel free to add to the above list. The bottom line is if DALPA doesn't get its act together the big losers will be us - the Pilot group. Scoop |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2184615)
That is certainly a change from forum sentiment a year ago. Everyone said that management was desperate for a agreement and the only reason TA15 was not vastly better was a MEC corrupted and in managements pocket. All we needed was to show a little resolve and they would throw money at us because they had to have a agreement and we had huge leverage.
I assume by everyone you mean "one" of the more prolific posters on Chit Chat. But just in case I am mistaken, which occurs often, please refresh our memory with the names of the frequent APC posters that said this. I do remember guys posting that management wanted an early deal, but "desperate for and agreement?" We should be so lucky. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2184933)
I assume by everyone you mean "one" of the more prolific posters on Chit Chat. But just in case I am mistaken, which occurs often, please refresh our memory with the names of the frequent APC posters that said this.
I do remember guys posting that management wanted an early deal, but "desperate for and agreement?" We should be so lucky. Scoop |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2184949)
You don't remember the new TA in 48 hours posts? The new TA in two weeks posts? The new TA by the amendable date posts? The new TA before the busy summer season posts?
I am positive I've never posted we'd have a fast deal, it makes no sense. We are a business expense to management; nothing more and nothing less, despite their empty rhetoric about "best pilots in the industry" BS. I'm not saying we can't make gains in a contract negotiation, but if costs go up significantly without anything in return then why would they ever agree? It would be like asking management if they want to pay $2.00 per gallon of fuel or $4.00 for the "best fuel in the industry". Fortunately unlike gasoline, pilots can take definitive actions to help encourage the company to change their tune a bit. It is my opinion that if we want the deal we deserve, then we won't get it until either profits or the stock price suffer as a result of our actions. I believe the only road to a relatively fast deal will have sections that include unsavory bits that would make it difficult to pass. I haven't seen the surveys so I can't claim to know the will of the pilot group. The company and ALPA need to win over the 'middle third' swing voters like me. I won't lie over and play dead like the yes voters on TA15 did, but I also don't require restoration+. In another post before the NMB put us in timeout somebody posted a rumor of 17/4/4 with ZERO concessions and I said something to the effect of "don't tease me" to which somebody else immediately ridiculed. In 3 years we'll wish we had 17/4/4 to tide us over as we fought among our ourselves and with management while earning an additional 0/0/0. EDIT: not that I think the company will give us something for nothing without us applying significant pressure. |
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184491)
By sending us home, is the NMB warning/punishing us or the company?
Will more pressure be possible, will it have the effect we want, and will the resulting deal be worth the wait? My personal guesses are yes, yes and yes. And if I'm completely wrong, I won't regret the sacrifice I'll have made if for no other other reason than to register my objection to corporate greed. Many before me have given much more for much less. |
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2184537)
I beg to differ. Management would be more than happy keeping the current deal for as long as they possibly can.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2184615)
That is certainly a change from forum sentiment a year ago. Everyone said that management was desperate for a agreement and the only reason TA15 was not vastly better was a MEC corrupted and in managements pocket. All we needed was to show a little resolve and they would throw money at us because they had to have a agreement and we had huge leverage.
The majority doesn't believe there is a quick deal to be had and is not interested in a quick deal. We want the right deal. Quit pushing the revisionist history, its not fooling anybody and serves no purpose. You don't actually think you're swaying opinion by repeating lies? Your group keeps repeating them as if it will eventually become truth. Nobody is buying. |
The company has come off their previous positions, slightly. But hasn't added significant value. They want to dilute profit sharing in 2 ways, change the sick leave, LCA pulls?, and the pay rates don't lead the industry.
It's their job to keep creating new ways to be cost effective. But when is enough, enough? I know this is business. But even the biggest DAL cheerleader/pilot knows the company doesn't need a damn thing from us to continue the huge profits. They just need to be honest and stop asking to give back our benefits, we really have given just about everything of value in one form or another. The risk is that many of us are done doing the extra things, forever. |
If they're asking for this stuff now, they're only gonna ask for more in three years. When do we say enough is enough?
|
Originally Posted by TexanDriver
(Post 2185013)
If they're asking for this stuff now, they're only gonna ask for more in three years. When do we say enough is enough?
It's like having a cousin addicted to meth. Eventually you quit helping because they will always be back for more. It never ends until you put a stop to it. |
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2183881)
No. It counted alright. But it very likely screwed us.
Some have the opinion that the last POSTA1.0 was good enough and its defeat merely means it needed better marketing and maybe the rearranging of a few deck chairs. That POV is invalid because it has been thoroughly and historically blown out of the water by the large majority of the membership. Its time to move on. POSTA1.0 didn't need a tweak and repackage. It was wholly insufficient. Since then the industry went from well behind us to blowing past us. We've already agreed to their single biggest issue anyway. Its time for them to pay us. The previous approach of TVM hitting singles has been wholeheartedly rejected and that rejection needs to be accepted by them all. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2184473)
Probably some truth in Buzz's report along with opinions posted as facts and outright BS, I have heard directly from Reps in both camps. Their versions are not compatible.
The whole thing is a mess with neither side taking the high road and the Pilot group (me include) not knowing what to believe. If anyone thinks one group is comprised of Saintly do-gooders fighting valiantly for the Pilot group and the other side is evil obstructionists only trying to further a hidden agenda then they are fools. The Reps and complete DALPA administration are being torn in multiple directions by many things - not every Rep/DALPA staffer has the same motivations but they probably all have a few of these items on their mind: Doing what think is best for the Pilot group. Doing what they think is achievable. Doing what they think the majority of Pilots want. Keeping promises. Possible future ALPA/DALPA positions for themselves. Leaving/killing DALPA. Feel free to add to the above list. The bottom line is if DALPA doesn't get its act together the big losers will be us - the Pilot group. This is not our first rodeo as observers of the MEC. In 2015, 2015, and LOA's in-between, the pattern is always the same: -MEC goes in together, negotiates. -Gerry leaks the least favorable terms, implies that NC is going rogue, but C20 stands firm. -C20 and friends tell us they stand firm against Moakist [deleted] trying to give up the store. -Majority commits without C20 and friends, -Pilots vote. -Only problem C20 and friends now have is that they're the majority. It's kind of hard to play the pullback game, or the rogue NC game at that point. That, and the fact that there really isn't that much daylight between the 19. We don't really have a practical negotiation problem that can't be solved. It's actually pretty simple: company has to move up, we have to come down. Company will sit tight until we have an MEC that negotiates aggressively towards a deal, and can say conclusively that "x" is the deal they will stand firmly behind. What we have here, IMO, is a political problem. The 19 own the place, C20 and friends are running the show, but they don't actually have a line from which to pull back, and be the "good" reps. They have to somehow get through this, and convince PD that they're really not coming down off the opener, even though they are, and even though everyone knows they must. Political imperatives vs. interests of the group. |
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
(Post 2183852)
For years, I have heard that "they didn't follow the survey."
While that may or may not be accurate, it is also irrelevant. Polling is a tool, primarily used to judge the pilots' priorities. It does not (nor is it intended to) lock our negotiators into any one position. It is meant to assist them, not to handcuff them. Often, market forces, political pressures, economic factors, etc. prevent negotiators from achieving every item in surveys. It's common and expected. That's where leadership comes in. Leadership that at the moment we seem to be lacking. Our reps are supposed to represent us, but they are also supposed to lead. They are privy to things we aren't. They have information that we don't. We elect them and pay them to make decisions on our behalf. They are not supposed to be mindless megaphones for the pilots. If they are, why not just replace them with Internet polling and have what amounts to a 13,500-man negotiating committee? If every pilot asked for a million dollars a year in the survey, many on here believe that our MEC's job is then to get every pilot a million dollars a year. It isn't. True leaders, ones who aren't scared of their pilots, would write updates, stand in the lounges, face the slings and arrows of angry pilots, and explain reality. Unfortunately, our MEC is beginning to look like panderers, rather than leaders. Not sure what your reps are? Ask yourself if they have ever said anything that you didn't want to hear. If they haven't, then you don't have a leader, you have a panderer. And eventually, those panderers are going to cost you a fortune if they don't learn to lead. We deserve an industry-leading contract. We shouldn't accept anything less. But true leaders should tell you that "industry-leading" doesn't mean every page of every section of the PWA, and that the only way that that goal is achievable is to address some of management's concerns as well. There will be small "gives" in the next contract. There is simply no way around it. And your reps know it. If they aren't telling you that, they are not only pandering, they are ignoring and suppressing the voice and advice of the experts that they have hired to advise them. And they are lying to you. It's easy to be a hero. Just tell people what they want to hear. But eventually the people are going to want to see some results. I just hope they don't wait too long. |
Originally Posted by 404yxl
(Post 2183868)
You can keep repeating the same threads, that democracy isn't fun when you are no longer in power, to try and distract from the fact the company paid the ex-ceo over $80 million from Jan. 1 through July, while complaining about their perceived sick abuse by 13,000 pilots to the tune of $50 million, but it won't work anymore.
Cheers. Yes we find ourselves in the BEST NEGOTIATING ENVIRONMENT EVER, IMO but we are also saddled with the RLA and NMB, which significantly handcuff us in achieving our goals. I completely agree, the company can afford to restore all of our pay and work rule concessions given during the BK era. Unfortunately, the issue is convincing them it's in their best interest to negotiate rationally with us. Right now, they're not and a "split" MEC sure isn't helping matters. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 2184377)
What I've heard from a mix of the 7 and 12 is just what you stated, Scoop. When not pressured to hold a political line they say reality is in between and much more realistic.
|
Originally Posted by Dat jet
(Post 2184014)
One poster alluded to a 28% pay raise....well a 28% pay raise, even with no changes to profit sharing won't pass a pilot vote right now. A TA with that pay raise would get shot down, and when you consider sick leave, VB, etc....its only going to anger and frurther infuriate the pilot base. Those hourly pay rates for our 767s don't even come within a solar system of the UPS 767 hourly pay rates.
Before anyone chimes in....PAY RATES AND PROFIT SHARING ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.....DO NOT LUMP THEM IN TOGETHER -JV changes -VB we couldn't walk away from (Ironclad) Sick leave AIP would need tweaked and I could live with a slight ALV increase and maybe a little something else. Any other scope changes would be VERY hard to allow. But the pay(rates/vacation/training), retro and absolutely no PS changes (the executive group "holdout" is an auto No for me) offset the few gives. It would be close but I think it would pass. Fire Away. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:40 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands