Delta Pilots Association
12-02-2010 | 08:42 AM
#3191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,039
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
Just a little opinion:
No matter what UNION represents us, people will be in charge. People, generally, seek these positions for a multitude of reasons. To be elected into these positions, one needs to say what you want to hear. POLITICS, in other words, will always be a part of our representation. And in POLITICS, there is a lot of BULL $ H ! T.
It is just the way of today's environment, so wanting to change something for something similar (even though the politicians say there will be change) is just a waste of resources and energy.
TYG
No matter what UNION represents us, people will be in charge. People, generally, seek these positions for a multitude of reasons. To be elected into these positions, one needs to say what you want to hear. POLITICS, in other words, will always be a part of our representation. And in POLITICS, there is a lot of BULL $ H ! T.
It is just the way of today's environment, so wanting to change something for something similar (even though the politicians say there will be change) is just a waste of resources and energy.
TYG
12-02-2010 | 11:08 AM
#3192
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
*sigh* I don't necessarily feel much like making the argument here because the next 5 pages are all about shiny-big-carrying-a-lot-of-people-airplanes that MUST have the highest payrate and getting guys out of that mindset is a monumental challenge. The hardest part of that is getting them to understand the concept of time/value of money. Forget payscales that stop at 12 years... all that does is hamstring us on bit income and equally importantly, quality of life. I'll bet the company laughs at that everytime they begin section 6 negotiations... If you wanna know more.. PM me...
12-02-2010 | 01:22 PM
#3193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
Satch;
Pretty broad brush on the senior pilots. I dont quite get that.
Most pilots that are senior (or older) just want the opportunity to feather their retirement bed at this point. If you were not around for the post 911 blood letting, I cannot put you into those shoes. If you are super junior, I doubt that there is any pilot, from super senior to mid seniority, that wants anything but for you to move up the food chain.
The blood letting was extreme and we have continued and propogated that draconian bankruptcy contract for 4 more years. You came afterward. You didn't personally experience it. The senior pilots, who you seem to have significant disdain for, did. Some are horses butts, but all FDALs lost their retirement with a very limited window to try to build one. You hired on during a bankruptcy contract and low payrates, they probably didn't.
Although you do get a vote equal to theirs, maybe rather than think how you can cancel them out of a raise, you should unite with them to try to regain what this job used to be.
Just think about it.
Pretty broad brush on the senior pilots. I dont quite get that.
Most pilots that are senior (or older) just want the opportunity to feather their retirement bed at this point. If you were not around for the post 911 blood letting, I cannot put you into those shoes. If you are super junior, I doubt that there is any pilot, from super senior to mid seniority, that wants anything but for you to move up the food chain.
The blood letting was extreme and we have continued and propogated that draconian bankruptcy contract for 4 more years. You came afterward. You didn't personally experience it. The senior pilots, who you seem to have significant disdain for, did. Some are horses butts, but all FDALs lost their retirement with a very limited window to try to build one. You hired on during a bankruptcy contract and low payrates, they probably didn't.
Although you do get a vote equal to theirs, maybe rather than think how you can cancel them out of a raise, you should unite with them to try to regain what this job used to be.
Just think about it.
Say what you want about LM, but I firmly believe that I kept a job through the recession due to his multi layered scope and contract strategy. Had someone else been in charge, someone who believed in the old paradigm, I don't think we would have been in front of this merger nor would we have gotten the improvements and the equity.
That is why I am so firmly against this DPA crowd. Hidden motivations, hidden agendas, old style hard line union demands without concern for the most vulnerable of us. Just keep remembering Carl's words. Take the furlough, suck it up. Not very unifying.
12-02-2010 | 01:27 PM
#3194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
*sigh* I don't necessarily feel much like making the argument here because the next 5 pages are all about shiny-big-carrying-a-lot-of-people-airplanes that MUST have the highest payrate and getting guys out of that mindset is a monumental challenge. The hardest part of that is getting them to understand the concept of time/value of money. Forget payscales that stop at 12 years... all that does is hamstring us on bit income and equally importantly, quality of life. I'll bet the company laughs at that everytime they begin section 6 negotiations... If you wanna know more.. PM me...
12-02-2010 | 01:57 PM
#3195
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Sorry for bringing this up again, but I just saw a commercial on TV that reminded me about your comments regarding the bankers not allowing pay increases for us.
I thought this was pretty funny. Are these the guys who are actually running Delta Air Lines?!
YouTube - robertho.com/addict - Barclays - Bankers - Trust me
I thought this was pretty funny. Are these the guys who are actually running Delta Air Lines?!
YouTube - robertho.com/addict - Barclays - Bankers - Trust me
Jeez 88:
Lets see. DAL needs billions of new jets. There will be some financing for that. They want a good risk after the CH11 era. They can exert pressure by tinkering with DAL's debt rating if their costs go way above the margins that they feel are safe.
You tout being a business man, you know that unless you are able to buy everything in cash you have to listen to the banks to get those loans. It is called a good credit rating. Lose that, and it gets very expensive to compete. We should see that after the last ten years. It is not rocket science.
It just means that for every action (restoration, raises et al way above industry norms) will cause and equal and opposite reaction to reign in costs. If AMR and CALALPA do not get this level, then we would be way above them wrt to costs, and as we saw with LUV killing markets in the last decade that is a dangerous place to me. I prefer to write history not repeat it.
12-02-2010 | 02:57 PM
#3196
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Sailing,
My recollection is a bit different than yours regarding the Bill Brown era.
(This is all from memory, so I could be somewhat in error.)
Back in 1972 (or so) Dalpa negotiated a "Minimum Benefit Guarantee" as part of the retirement benefit calculation. This was tied to the performance of the S&P 500. It really wasn't much of an issue for 20 years or so, but back in the mid-nineties the S&P 500 index was booming.
Delta was (understandably) concerned about the effect of this clause on how much they were going to have to pay out in retirement benefits for the pilots eligible for the Minimum Benefit Guarantee.
IIRC part of the '96 contract was a freezing of the Minimum Benefit Guarantee. The company did offer an early retirement program, and you are correct about the added five years.
However the reality was that many pilots simply didn't retire early. Due to manning requirements and training limitations there were quite a number of pilots who took the so called early retirement who literally retired on their normal retirement date.
So they got the incentives, but didn't leave early. To me that had zero benefit for the junior pilots at the time, and I think that's why the perception exists that the senior pilots were rewarded.
Again, this is all from memory (disclaimer).
My recollection is a bit different than yours regarding the Bill Brown era.
(This is all from memory, so I could be somewhat in error.)
Back in 1972 (or so) Dalpa negotiated a "Minimum Benefit Guarantee" as part of the retirement benefit calculation. This was tied to the performance of the S&P 500. It really wasn't much of an issue for 20 years or so, but back in the mid-nineties the S&P 500 index was booming.
Delta was (understandably) concerned about the effect of this clause on how much they were going to have to pay out in retirement benefits for the pilots eligible for the Minimum Benefit Guarantee.
IIRC part of the '96 contract was a freezing of the Minimum Benefit Guarantee. The company did offer an early retirement program, and you are correct about the added five years.
However the reality was that many pilots simply didn't retire early. Due to manning requirements and training limitations there were quite a number of pilots who took the so called early retirement who literally retired on their normal retirement date.
So they got the incentives, but didn't leave early. To me that had zero benefit for the junior pilots at the time, and I think that's why the perception exists that the senior pilots were rewarded.
Again, this is all from memory (disclaimer).
Seriously, I was relatively junior, and strongly opposed to this because the effect was exactly as you describe. Due to training restrictions, many of the 500 (increased to 505 to cover certain individuals!) ended up retiring on their normal retirement, so no movement for the young guys. Yet, it was this promised movement that got us to sign off on a 2% paycut and 4 years with zero raises. Yes, there was profit sharing, and as it turned out that paid out (6% annually as I recall), but that means you got one 6% raise, then 3 years of the same pay.
Woo hoo.
12-02-2010 | 04:04 PM
#3197
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,871
Likes: 189
Wasatch, your memory is exactly as mine is, so you must be right.
Seriously, I was relatively junior, and strongly opposed to this because the effect was exactly as you describe. Due to training restrictions, many of the 500 (increased to 505 to cover certain individuals!) ended up retiring on their normal retirement, so no movement for the young guys. Yet, it was this promised movement that got us to sign off on a 2% paycut and 4 years with zero raises. Yes, there was profit sharing, and as it turned out that paid out (6% annually as I recall), but that means you got one 6% raise, then 3 years of the same pay.
Woo hoo.
Seriously, I was relatively junior, and strongly opposed to this because the effect was exactly as you describe. Due to training restrictions, many of the 500 (increased to 505 to cover certain individuals!) ended up retiring on their normal retirement, so no movement for the young guys. Yet, it was this promised movement that got us to sign off on a 2% paycut and 4 years with zero raises. Yes, there was profit sharing, and as it turned out that paid out (6% annually as I recall), but that means you got one 6% raise, then 3 years of the same pay.
Woo hoo.
12-02-2010 | 04:18 PM
#3199
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
