Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

How is it different?

In answering this question, recall that you are now a Delta pilot and the majority of folks around here have a Delta background.

Everyone can decide for themselves which was a more effective strategy and which yielded better results.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

He's also responsible for presiding over:

LOA #43 and #44 "temporary relief from cap and other scheduling limits"

LOA #45 "Post-Retirement Pilots" or PeRPs, that kept our furloughed pilots on the street even longer while everyone else made C2K pay

AND LOA #46, the 5 Billion Dollar giveback, all prior to bankruptcy and within the normal Section 6 time frame for the C2K amenable date:

• Increased limit for number of 70-seat RJs to a maximum of 150, based on scheduled mainline block hours.
• 32.5 percent reduction in hourly pay rates.

• Reduction in per diem, night pay, and international pay.
• 
International pay only for international flights actually operated (not for sick, vacation, or reserve guarantee).
• 
Value of vacation day reduced.

• PBS implemented.
• 
Monthly cap replaced by average line value (ALV).
• 
FO recovery obligation if removed for another pilot’s Operating Experience (OE).
• Recovery and reroute rules broadened.
• Reserve high/low yellow slip system replaced by reserve assignment weighting (RAW).
• Green slip (GS), green slip with conflict (GSWC), and reroute pay reduced.
• Defined-benefit plan was soft-frozen.

• Accident leave reduced.


DPA is his mea culpa? He's responsible for presiding over the single largest concessions deal in Delta history. ***?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Correct ... and this "battle" is over who is sitting at the table with management. Typically groups might fight among themselves over negotiating positions, but I've never seen a group (insert your own adjective) enough to have a representational fight during Section 6. Even the DPA acknowledged this before they missed their self imposed deadlines. US Air was too close for comfort and now that mess threatens to migrate here.

It is, in my opinion, foolhardy arrogance to think a guy from the bleachers (even a veteran player) could simply climb the fence and pinch hit with equal effectiveness as the experienced team who has spent months in preparations and years learning to work together well. In my opinion, your player should go to try outs, join the team and have the General Manager (us) direct the Coaches (the MEC) to play him. That is how things are done. I certainly provide my opinions on next season's roster ... .

Further, it is my opinion that splinter groups are made of people who like to splinter. People (perhaps honorable and well intentioned) who have strong opinions and who want their way. It is most common for splinter groups to quickly devolve into conflict, then divide again in a sort of self propagating nuclear chain reaction until their heavy hitters are rendered mostly hot gasses.

There are certain emergency scenarios which overthrowing the bargaining agent is a consideration. But like Egypt, expect severe economic harm as the result. As a basic rule, money flees political instability. It has got to be worth it.

Some have so lost focus that they target our brothers instead of targeting management in their attempts to negotiate a contract. It is a trend; they target ALPA National and RJ pilots for failures in Delta scope. A the end of the day management buys and allocates airplanes, management signs our paychecks, we enforce our contract with our management.

Being properly focused and being unified are how we will get a better result in Contract 2012.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Reading JM's writings leaves one with the impression that he's a bright man with good analytical abilities. Many would like to hear (or read) his thoughts which explain why he supports a representational change during Section 6. It would be interesting ...

On the other hand, what are the average DAL pilot's opinion of Contract 2000? Sure, it had high pay rates, but it began falling apart almost instantly. I will have to check my notes, but I believe the first scope concessions were within 6 months of ratification, it was then modified several more times (indicating failure) before being mostly wiped out by agreement in bankruptcy.

C2K was good for headlines, but was it sustainable? Did it make good sense? Curious what others think.

Originally Posted by Gomerglideslope

Good point....DAL pilots always seemed to have had a better relationship with their management than the NWA pilots, and save for perhaps a short time in the mid 80s, they have had better pay and working conditions (to be sure, the C2K restoration benchmark was never achieved by the NWA pilots)....and now it seems they will not be happy without that unfruitful rancorous relationship....go figure.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

This conversation didn't begin with who "presided" over what. It started with me saying that the guy who negotiated C2K as the negotiating chairman (not presided over, but actually negotiated), is now a DPA supporter. I understand your need to deflect that fact by changing the subject to the later role of presiding as MEC chairman, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that noticed your clear deflection.

The other sad thing to watch is ALPA-philes such as yourself smearing a former negotiating chairman and MEC chairman after he commits the unpardonable sin of wanting to leave ALPA. You folks really should watch it with the smearing of such good people just because they want a change. But, you do your own thing.

Carl

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

You expect me to believe that the MEC Chairman had nothing to do with those LOAs? The MEC Chariman a.k.a. defacto member of the NegCom, had no knowledge or influence on these LOAs? Really? Then, instead of quitting out of disgust after LOA #46, he then runs for another term? That's your argument? I heard he worked out the deal with the "old man" himself, but that's hearsay.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

I didn't smear anyone. I stated facts. He did preside over the single largest give away in Delta pilot history and if you think the MEC Chairman has nothing to do with the day-to-day negotiations with the company then you must be even further removed than I thought you were. My research shows that LOA #46 gave back $5 Billion outside of bankruptcy and LOA #51 added $2.1 Billion back inside bankruptcy. I do not see him as the white knight that you do.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

It's not about what you believe. It's about changing the subject. THIS subject is about who DID what...not who PRESIDED over what. The guy who DID actually negotiate C2K is now a strong DPA supporter. You continually refuse to discuss that in favor of smearing his role AFTERWARDS as the MEC chairman when our industry was changed forever with 9-11. Can you possibly stay on the subject?



You absolutely did smear him. And I never said he was a "white knight". I simply said that the guy who actually negotiated Delta's C2K is now a strong DPA supporter. I stated this in response to the usual suspects here smearing DPA as an organization filled with people not ready for prime time. Again, can you possibly stay on subject?

Carl

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

Yet I keep hearing that you can't look at our contract as a function of an industry that was changed forever vis-a-vis the bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

Let me boil this roux down some more. Are you really trying to convince me that he single-handedly did all the work for C2K and no one else did anything and then in 2005, well after 9/11 and pre-bankrupcty, during the opener time frame, he had nothing to do with the LOAs? The fact he presided over the LOAs is just as important as one should judge his body of work. What if C2K was a one off for him? My opinion is that the give back to Delta pre-bankruptcy negated everything gained by C2K, that is, if you concede that the company got nearly everything they wanted in C2K in LOA #46. Are you are going to tell me next that his signature isn't on the LOAs? Was it a rogue NegCom that held a gun to his head and made him sign?

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

You can chose to believe the facts or continue to attempt deflection by saying that I'm deflecting when you know the truth is that it's near impossible to assign the win or the loss to one individual, yet you keep trying.