|
Yes/No TA Perspective
After quite a few posts here recently, I have come to one general thought on the differences between the yes and the no voters.
No voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what they think we should have and see a minus. Yes voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what we currently have and see a plus. IMO, when considering the pros and cons of this TA, one should be comparing it to what we currently have. Not an esoteric version of what should be. Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2232449)
After quite a few posts here recently, I have come to one general thought on the differences between the yes and the no voters.
No voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what they think we should have and see a minus. Yes voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what we currently have and see a plus. IMO, when considering the pros and cons of this TA, one should be comparing it to what we currently have. Not an esoteric version of what should be. Denny |
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2232449)
After quite a few posts here recently, I have come to one general thought on the differences between the yes and the no voters.
No voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what they think we should have and see a minus. Yes voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what we currently have and see a plus. IMO, when considering the pros and cons of this TA, one should be comparing it to what we currently have. Not an esoteric version of what should be. Denny Passing this TA sends a very clear message to management going forward. Is all management has to do is low ball us with a TA, if we accept it great and if we don't that's fine too. Then within a year or two the pilots will accept QOL concessions just to keep up with the rest of the industry. If we can't make improvements now, not restoration, just improvements to our quality of life now, we will more that likely continue to see our QOL decline in the future when the retirements kick in. Really hope I'm wrong on that. |
I think the change excluding the other employees from profit sharing was our leverage that got this deal done.
|
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232456)
I'm a solid NO vote and it's due to the fact that this TA will result in an overall reduction in our quality of life. This TA certainly will not improve our QOL, I don't even think it will maintain it, we're still moving backwards.
Passing this TA sends a very clear message to management going forward. Is all management has to do is low ball us with a TA, if we accept it great and if we don't that's fine too. Then within a year or two the pilots will accept QOL concessions just to keep up with the rest of the industry. If we can't make improvements now, not restoration, just improvements to our quality of life now, we will more that likely continue to see our QOL decline in the future when the retirements kick in. Really hope I'm wrong on that. |
Originally Posted by Elliot
(Post 2232460)
Define Quality of Life? I'm senior "B" in my category and I have EXCELLENT quality of life! So do others in my seniority range. Now, if you're a 2014 hire and want to hang out on the bottom of the NYC-330 category, then come on here complaining about your QOL, or lack thereof, you ain't gettin' any sympathy from me, Princess!
Lets pretend that from one year to the next Delta were to do the same amount of flying with the same number of airplanes. Pass this TA and it will require fewer pilots to do the same amount of flying. I would love to see the math on this if I'm wrong. Every contract since BK we have given productivity concessions. C2012 cost us something like 250 jobs, no idea on this one. Again, show me that this TA will not cost us jobs with VB, WB ALV increase etc. BTW, is the whole Princess thing necessary? You have no idea what I've been through. But I'm sure it makes you feel better so........... |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232456)
I'm a solid NO vote and it's due to the fact that this TA will result in an overall reduction in our quality of life. This TA certainly will not improve our QOL, I don't even think it will maintain it, we're still moving backwards.
Passing this TA sends a very clear message to management going forward. Is all management has to do is low ball us with a TA, if we accept it great and if we don't that's fine too. Then within a year or two the pilots will accept QOL concessions just to keep up with the rest of the industry. If we can't make improvements now, not restoration, just improvements to our quality of life now, we will more that likely continue to see our QOL decline in the future when the retirements kick in. Really hope I'm wrong on that. As a hardover NO last time I'm not so sure. I think it's better than what we have now. IE, were you a yes or no on C12? Personally, I was underwhelmed by C12 and I do think this pushes the ball forward somewhat. As a side, silly on the treadmill oxygen deprived analysis. I honestly think the duration of this TA and the time it will take to turn it down and reengage the company for something better.....are about the same:D |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
Well, it's all about you isn't it.
Lets pretend that from one year to the next Delta were to do the same amount of flying with the same number of airplanes. Pass this TA and it will require fewer pilots to do the same amount of flying. I would love to see the math on this if I'm wrong. You are stating it will cost jobs. It is not up to the other side to prove you wrong. Prove yourself right. That being said, you are probably right that it will cost some jobs although I will bet that it's fewer than you think when the whole TA is considered. And, IMO, with the how much hiring we are doing now and into the future, it's not going to be more than a one time blip on the radar screen. Every contract since BK we have given productivity concessions. C2012 cost us something like 250 jobs, no idea on this one. Again, show me that this TA will not cost us jobs with VB, WB ALV increase etc. Yes, those items will cost some jobs but there are also items like increased vacation and training pay that will offset those. BTW, is the whole Princess thing necessary? You have no idea what I've been through. But I'm sure it makes you feel better so........... Denny |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
Every contract since BK we have given productivity concessions.
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2232449)
After quite a few posts here recently, I have come to one general thought on the differences between the yes and the no voters.
No voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what they think we should have and see a minus. Yes voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what we currently have and see a plus. IMO, when considering the pros and cons of this TA, one should be comparing it to what we currently have. Not an esoteric version of what should be. Denny |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
Well, it's all about you isn't it.
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
Every contract since BK we have given productivity concessions. C2012 cost us something like 250 jobs, no idea on this one. Again, show me that this TA will not cost us jobs with VB, WB ALV increase etc.
I get it. We're pilots and we like to complain about enough never being good enough! (It's in our DNA.) :D
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
BTW, is the whole Princess thing necessary? You have no idea what I've been through. But I'm sure it makes you feel better so...........
|
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232456)
I'm a solid NO vote and it's due to the fact that this TA will result in an overall reduction in our quality of life. This TA certainly will not improve our QOL, I don't even think it will maintain it, we're still moving backwards.
Passing this TA sends a very clear message to management going forward. Is all management has to do is low ball us with a TA, if we accept it great and if we don't that's fine too. Then within a year or two the pilots will accept QOL concessions just to keep up with the rest of the industry. If we can't make improvements now, not restoration, just improvements to our quality of life now, we will more that likely continue to see our QOL decline in the future when the retirements kick in. Really hope I'm wrong on that. |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
Well, it's all about you isn't it.
Lets pretend that from one year to the next Delta were to do the same amount of flying with the same number of airplanes. Pass this TA and it will require fewer pilots to do the same amount of flying. I would love to see the math on this if I'm wrong. Every contract since BK we have given productivity concessions. C2012 cost us something like 250 jobs, no idea on this one. Again, show me that this TA will not cost us jobs with VB, WB ALV increase etc. BTW, is the whole Princess thing necessary? You have no idea what I've been through. But I'm sure it makes you feel better so........... Don't forget, those productivity concessions that cost jobs are also going to be offset by a certain amount by increased vacation pay and credit, and increased training pay and credit. I'd like to see what the overall give vs. gain is, as well. But, I do know it doesn't all go against us. |
I'm curious, when is the vote?
|
The vote opens on Nov 10 (I think) and closes on December 01.
Scoop |
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
(Post 2232493)
That's no different from the yes/no environment leading up to the failed TA. If you're just going to ignore where you think you should be, then you may as well take the first offer of a raise put in front of you.
I think the vast majority of pilots are realists. They want that esoteric perfect contract but are savvy enough to realize they aren't going to get it. But they can sure smell a turd when one shows up. So it comes down to a decision based on compromise and where do we go if this gets voted down? No matter which way anyone votes, this is a business decision not an emotional one. Denny |
I was a no on C2012 and a hard No on TA 15. I've seen nothing in TA16 to push me to a No.
As to QOL, this agreement will certainly enhance mine. I plan to fly a good bit less. |
Originally Posted by Elliot
(Post 2232497)
No, it's absolutely NOT all about me.. Just trying to get a perspective of what QOL means to you? I hear the "buzz word" Quality of Life thrown out there all the time. Just wondering where it's coming from, as my QOL is excellent. Now if you're a 2014-2016 new-hire complaining about QOL issues, well you're barking up the wrong tree.
I can't speak for "every contract since BK.." I was a 2008 hire. I don't come on this forum complaining about how bad I've had it since 2008, and maybe you shouldn't either. From what Sailling, Denny, JB, et. al. have said, I think everyone hired post 2007-2008 era have had it pretty good! (Minus the threat of furlough during the economic downturn.) I get it. We're pilots and we like to complain about enough never being good enough! (It's in our DNA.) :D As you have no idea what others on here or at Delta have been through either! I've been military for over 25 years and have low tolerance or patience for someone sounding like a Nancy! (Sorry if "Princess" offended your generational shortcomings!) And oh by the way, I was hired back when this job offered a really good quality of life and a pension. To be fair, I didn't complain about my quality of life, only that I wanted to try and improve upon it. I know that's taboo around these parts. I won't sink to Elliots level and name call, so I'm out of here. |
Originally Posted by Elliot
(Post 2232497)
No, it's absolutely NOT all about me.. Just trying to get a perspective of what QOL means to you? I hear the "buzz word" Quality of Life thrown out there all the time. Just wondering where it's coming from, as my QOL is excellent. Now if you're a 2014-2016 new-hire complaining about QOL issues, well you're barking up the wrong tree.
I can't speak for "every contract since BK.." I was a 2008 hire. I don't come on this forum complaining about how bad I've had it since 2008, and maybe you shouldn't either. From what Sailling, Denny, JB, et. al. have said, I think everyone hired post 2007-2008 era have had it pretty good! (Minus the threat of furlough during the economic downturn.) I get it. We're pilots and we like to complain about enough never being good enough! (It's in our DNA.) :D As you have no idea what others on here or at Delta have been through either! I've been military for over 25 years and have low tolerance or patience for someone sounding like a Nancy! (Sorry if "Princess" offended your generational shortcomings!)
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232556)
If someone who god forbid wants a jobs positive contract is a "Nancy" then yeah, call me what you want.
And oh by the way, I was hired back when this job offered a really good quality of life and a pension. To be fair, I didn't complain about my quality of life, only that I wanted to try and improve upon it. I know that's taboo around these parts. I won't sink to Elliots level and name call, so I'm out of here. Take a look at Elliot's little master piece. A bunch of false bravado and own crank stomping. The civil thing to do would be to apologize to Free Bird, but I'll bet he doesn't because that's not in his DNA. |
I think a lot of the No voters are looking at this deal and comparing it to what used to be. I can appreciate their desire to have their pension back, that is not the reality in which we currently exist.
The environment that we negotiate in (RLA) is designed to protect companies, not us. When times are good we will only be allowed to negotiate to what our peers have not matter the profitability of the company. When times are bad we are forced to negotiate to the financial position of the company no matter what are peers are doing. It's a rigged system that makes it pretty much impossible to "win". This deal is a fair deal. No one is jumping up and down saying we won, but I'd rather hang my hat on this one and see this thing turn into a (insert regional airline here) 5-6 year process where you are guaranteed to lose. |
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
(Post 2232575)
I don't do chit chat but I see a lot of posts decrying the toxic nature of that place, presumably attributed to the "no crowd".
Take a look at Elliot's little master piece. A bunch of false bravado and own crank stomping. The civil thing to do would be to apologize to Free Bird, but I'll bet he doesn't because that's not in his DNA. Trust, Elliot has received an infraction for his post which by the way would be considered a polite and restrained interaction on Chit Chat. We can not monitor this forum in real time but if you see something that seems over the line then report it via the red triangle on the left of each post and it will be quickly evaluated. Thanks Scoop |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2232449)
After quite a few posts here recently, I have come to one general thought on the differences between the yes and the no voters.
No voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what they think we should have and see a minus. Yes voters and the ones leaning that way look at this TA and compare it to what we currently have and see a plus. IMO, when considering the pros and cons of this TA, one should be comparing it to what we currently have. Not an esoteric version of what should be. Denny The Yes voters are comparing this TA to the last TA. |
Originally Posted by satchip
(Post 2232657)
Denny, I think the No voters are comparing the TA to our current contract (at least I am).
The Yes voters are comparing this TA to the last TA. |
Originally Posted by satchip
(Post 2232657)
Denny, I think the No voters are comparing the TA to our current contract (at least I am).
The Yes voters are comparing this TA to the last TA. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 2232661)
It's over simplistic IMO to do either. I look at both our current contract as well as the failed TA. This is significantly superior to our current contract and magnitudes of that better than the failed TA.
|
QOL, how's it getting worse. I can't see it changing. This is no home run, but you can still have Mac and cheese, a PBR and Internet.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 2232475)
Well, it's all about you isn't it.
Lets pretend that from one year to the next Delta were to do the same amount of flying with the same number of airplanes. Pass this TA and it will require fewer pilots to do the same amount of flying. I would love to see the math on this if I'm wrong. Every contract since BK we have given productivity concessions. C2012 cost us something like 250 jobs, no idea on this one. Again, show me that this TA will not cost us jobs with VB, WB ALV increase etc. BTW, is the whole Princess thing necessary? You have no idea what I've been through. But I'm sure it makes you feel better so........... |
Looking at the above slide, if VB and TDY are discontinued (they are on a test basis) that would add 141 jobs back into the mix.
|
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2232720)
Looking at the above slide, if VB and TDY are discontinued that would add 141 jobs back into the mix.
|
Any ALPA-produced slide or graphic will always be labeled propaganda. It's as useless as an outhouse in a hurricane to the no crowd.
|
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2232722)
Of course those that benefit from the QOL gain of the VB might get screwed, but their QOL doesn't matter as much as someone not hired I guess
|
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2232719)
Below is the slide from the roadshow.
Not a direct quote, but I'm darn close. |
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2232722)
Of course those that benefit from the QOL gain of the VB might get screwed, but their QOL doesn't matter as much as someone not hired I guess
The real question is whether the group benefits, both those that take the VB/TDY, and those that stay in base. TDY in particular seems like a tool to adjust staffing between bases, almost in real time. There is a ton here that needs to be looked at, carefully. I think we owe it to the people that want these to experiment with this, just as I think we owe it to all existing pilots to evaluate the pros and cons. I have a hunch that this will reduce credit, and probably reduce average trip length. |
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2232720)
Looking at the above slide, if VB and TDY are discontinued (they are on a test basis) that would add 141 jobs back into the mix.
|
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2232731)
True. Depends on your perspective.
|
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 2232740)
I think that's partly TIC?
The real question is whether the group benefits, both those that take the VB/TDY, and those that stay in base. TDY in particular seems like a tool to adjust staffing between bases, almost in real time. There is a ton here that needs to be looked at, carefully. I think we owe it to the people that want these to experiment with this, just as I think we owe it to all existing pilots to evaluate the pros and cons. I have a hunch that this will reduce credit, and probably reduce average trip length. Besides, isn't working less for the same or more money a QOL improvement? |
Not sure how the second parapgraph relates to the first, James.
|
The one thing I'm not seeing in that slide is the impact of the JV Scope change... Does this mean it has no impact on manning? I would think it does...
Denny |
Originally Posted by Hillbilly
(Post 2232741)
I think you're reading it wrong. I think it would only add 47 jobs. It would be the same 47 jobs for 3 years, not 47 more jobs every year.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:32 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands