Another must read
05-25-2012, 06:19 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
Posts: 397
Another must read
Ron Morrell—Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 05-25-2012 at 08:22 PM. Reason: Big font makes you look like you have to yell to get your point across. Not a good start.
05-25-2012, 08:19 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Retired, again...
Posts: 608
Thank you for sharing this information.
Regards,
BG
Regards,
BG
05-25-2012, 08:23 PM
#3
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I edited your post to a smaller font. Yikes. Now I can read it without feeling like I'm watching an obnoxious Monster Truck TV commercial.
05-25-2012, 08:33 PM
#4
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
BTW, you left off the entire top portion of the C54 email. Here is what you cut off that was above what you posted. 
Pat Harney—Chairman’s Perspective
As your elected officer, I want to give you an accounting for my actions on the current MEC-approved Tentative Agreement. I voted in favor of sending the TA to you, the Delta pilots, for your consideration and vote. When the window is open for the membership to vote on the TA, I will vote yes for the new contract. I will not spin or try to “sell” you on the provisions of the TA. There are good and not so good elements. I will present both the facts and the risks of not supporting the agreement; then, you decide what is best for you and your family.
My first reaction to the TA was that I am underwhelmed as it relates to pay. For the first three days of deliberations, I was not in favor of sending the TA out for member ratification. As more provisions were deliberated, I began to see value in the other sections that had been negotiated. While pay was less than my expectations, scope has industry-leading provisions and the early retirement package is impressive (except for the at-risk portions of the medical retirement account). In short, the agreement might fall short of pilot expectations on pay, but the early retirement and scope provisions are good, as are all of the other provisions relating to work rules and benefits. The scope provisions are event-based and require Delta to acquire Small Narrow Body (SNB) A/C. As they add the SNB A/C, it will force a hard ceiling on RJs; end state reducing from current 598 A/C in the DCI fleet to 450. The agreement adds more mainline flying for Delta pilots and results in a decrease of approximately 7,000 less seats available in the DCI fleet.
It was my expectation that we could have sent the negotiators over for one last plea regarding additional pay, but there was an agreement on a TA and an unwillingness of a majority of the MEC to send the negotiators back over for the additional ask. The risk was seen in loss or changes to the Early Retirement Plan and scope provisions. In addition, the negotiators said that they had already exceeded the line drawn in the sand with respect to the cost of the early agreement, and any other asks just before they agreed to the TA was met with other adjustments in other provisions. Remember this is a negotiation, not a go ask and get process.
The pilot expectation on pay was SWA book rates plus, on the amendable date. That would have required a minimum of 14.4 percent to match on their low side of pay based on performance or over 19 percent on the high side. On the amendable date, if ratified, we will receive a 12.8 percent pay increase. Short of expectation! However, one and a half years into the agreement, if one includes our DC as compensation, we beat SWA as it relates to pay, since bankruptcy Delta pilots will be up 53 percent on January 1, 2015. PMNW will exceed book rates at the time of their bankruptcy in January 2015. On January 1, 2015, our B-747/777 captains will exceed UPS and FedEx captain rates. Prior to the start of negotiations, I was not sure that we would have been able to achieve this. Yes, the referenced carriers will have an opportunity to negotiate higher rates between now and January 2015, but my response to that comment is, “I hope they do.” It will just give us additional leverage when we start new Section 6 negotiations in three years.
Are there elements that seem like self-funding/quid-pro-quo? Yes. In the survey, the Delta pilots asked for a higher reserve guarantee. The unintended consequence of this request is higher productivity of reserve pilots, which in turn requires fewer pilots on the list. On the other hand, pilots asked for more value for training and more vacation, both of which require more pilots. The early retirement option will help with the staffing side. The company wanted help to balance the high block hours of summer and holiday flying with the shoulder months by redefining the months in June through September and a higher ALV window. As you review the agreement, there will be other sections that have give-and-take provisions. Again, it is a negotiation, with requests made by both sides.
Why did I vote yes on the TA? Several reasons—advice from the three ALPA National Professional Negotiators and labor law attorneys, the twice unanimously-elected four-member Delta ALPA Negotiating Team, and Phil Comstock from the Wilson Polling Center, along with a careful review and debate with my fellow MEC members on the merits of the deal. The deal we have is real money today with incremental increases that get us to the likes of SWA, UPS, and FedEx pay rates in 2015; it is not just a hope of increases for tomorrow. There are real gains in scope provisions, and a desired Early Retirement Plan with substantial money in severance pay and a retiree medical account. Three years from now, we could still be stuck in traditional Section 6 negotiations with no changes to our current contract, or instead we could be starting a new round of negotiations to build on what we already achieved in this 2012 TA.
The conflict is this: can Delta Airlines afford higher pay rates and better work rules today? With a forecast of $1.6 to over $2 billion in profits this year, absolutely yes! Are they willing to spend more on this early TA? According to the negotiators, absolutely not! This is a business decision by management. They had a dollar amount that they were willing to spend on this early deal, and I’m confident that we hit that amount. I was not willing to vote no and risk losing the scope and early retirement provisions.
Carefully consider the entire TA; then vote what is best for you and your family. If the TA is approved, we will have work to do on the implementation of the provisions of this agreement. If you, the line pilots, determine it is not good enough, vote it down, and we will go back to the drawing board. It is up to you now, please vote when the window opens.
Let me be clear—this is your union, this is your contract, and this is your decision.
Art Aaron—Vice Chairman’s Perspective
Art is on vacation and will send his perspective as soon as he can, possibly next week.
Pat Harney—Chairman’s Perspective
As your elected officer, I want to give you an accounting for my actions on the current MEC-approved Tentative Agreement. I voted in favor of sending the TA to you, the Delta pilots, for your consideration and vote. When the window is open for the membership to vote on the TA, I will vote yes for the new contract. I will not spin or try to “sell” you on the provisions of the TA. There are good and not so good elements. I will present both the facts and the risks of not supporting the agreement; then, you decide what is best for you and your family.
My first reaction to the TA was that I am underwhelmed as it relates to pay. For the first three days of deliberations, I was not in favor of sending the TA out for member ratification. As more provisions were deliberated, I began to see value in the other sections that had been negotiated. While pay was less than my expectations, scope has industry-leading provisions and the early retirement package is impressive (except for the at-risk portions of the medical retirement account). In short, the agreement might fall short of pilot expectations on pay, but the early retirement and scope provisions are good, as are all of the other provisions relating to work rules and benefits. The scope provisions are event-based and require Delta to acquire Small Narrow Body (SNB) A/C. As they add the SNB A/C, it will force a hard ceiling on RJs; end state reducing from current 598 A/C in the DCI fleet to 450. The agreement adds more mainline flying for Delta pilots and results in a decrease of approximately 7,000 less seats available in the DCI fleet.
It was my expectation that we could have sent the negotiators over for one last plea regarding additional pay, but there was an agreement on a TA and an unwillingness of a majority of the MEC to send the negotiators back over for the additional ask. The risk was seen in loss or changes to the Early Retirement Plan and scope provisions. In addition, the negotiators said that they had already exceeded the line drawn in the sand with respect to the cost of the early agreement, and any other asks just before they agreed to the TA was met with other adjustments in other provisions. Remember this is a negotiation, not a go ask and get process.
The pilot expectation on pay was SWA book rates plus, on the amendable date. That would have required a minimum of 14.4 percent to match on their low side of pay based on performance or over 19 percent on the high side. On the amendable date, if ratified, we will receive a 12.8 percent pay increase. Short of expectation! However, one and a half years into the agreement, if one includes our DC as compensation, we beat SWA as it relates to pay, since bankruptcy Delta pilots will be up 53 percent on January 1, 2015. PMNW will exceed book rates at the time of their bankruptcy in January 2015. On January 1, 2015, our B-747/777 captains will exceed UPS and FedEx captain rates. Prior to the start of negotiations, I was not sure that we would have been able to achieve this. Yes, the referenced carriers will have an opportunity to negotiate higher rates between now and January 2015, but my response to that comment is, “I hope they do.” It will just give us additional leverage when we start new Section 6 negotiations in three years.
Are there elements that seem like self-funding/quid-pro-quo? Yes. In the survey, the Delta pilots asked for a higher reserve guarantee. The unintended consequence of this request is higher productivity of reserve pilots, which in turn requires fewer pilots on the list. On the other hand, pilots asked for more value for training and more vacation, both of which require more pilots. The early retirement option will help with the staffing side. The company wanted help to balance the high block hours of summer and holiday flying with the shoulder months by redefining the months in June through September and a higher ALV window. As you review the agreement, there will be other sections that have give-and-take provisions. Again, it is a negotiation, with requests made by both sides.
Why did I vote yes on the TA? Several reasons—advice from the three ALPA National Professional Negotiators and labor law attorneys, the twice unanimously-elected four-member Delta ALPA Negotiating Team, and Phil Comstock from the Wilson Polling Center, along with a careful review and debate with my fellow MEC members on the merits of the deal. The deal we have is real money today with incremental increases that get us to the likes of SWA, UPS, and FedEx pay rates in 2015; it is not just a hope of increases for tomorrow. There are real gains in scope provisions, and a desired Early Retirement Plan with substantial money in severance pay and a retiree medical account. Three years from now, we could still be stuck in traditional Section 6 negotiations with no changes to our current contract, or instead we could be starting a new round of negotiations to build on what we already achieved in this 2012 TA.
The conflict is this: can Delta Airlines afford higher pay rates and better work rules today? With a forecast of $1.6 to over $2 billion in profits this year, absolutely yes! Are they willing to spend more on this early TA? According to the negotiators, absolutely not! This is a business decision by management. They had a dollar amount that they were willing to spend on this early deal, and I’m confident that we hit that amount. I was not willing to vote no and risk losing the scope and early retirement provisions.
Carefully consider the entire TA; then vote what is best for you and your family. If the TA is approved, we will have work to do on the implementation of the provisions of this agreement. If you, the line pilots, determine it is not good enough, vote it down, and we will go back to the drawing board. It is up to you now, please vote when the window opens.
Let me be clear—this is your union, this is your contract, and this is your decision.
Art Aaron—Vice Chairman’s Perspective
Art is on vacation and will send his perspective as soon as he can, possibly next week.
05-25-2012, 09:46 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Originally Posted by Superdad
Ron Morrell—Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
05-25-2012, 09:50 PM
#6
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by buzzpat
Well, there it is. Nobody in 16 has the gumption to put this out there! All in the interests of transparency of course!
05-25-2012, 10:25 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Pat Harney—Chairman’s Perspective
The agreement adds more mainline flying for Delta pilots and results in a decrease of approximately 7,000 less seats available in the DCI fleet.
The agreement adds more mainline flying for Delta pilots and results in a decrease of approximately 7,000 less seats available in the DCI fleet.
05-25-2012, 10:27 PM
#8
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Boomer
If you decrease 7,000 less seats, is that an increase?
By my calculations, based off of Delta's obligations, it's more like 5500 less.
Not a decrease of 5500 less, just less.
05-26-2012, 06:28 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
Superdad, It appears you violated the truth in advertising act on your original post. I have yet to see a contract that is a slam dunk, they all have good and bad. The company has a wish list, we have a wish list then we negotiate.
05-26-2012, 07:09 AM
#10
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by finis72
Superdad, It appears you violated the truth in advertising act on your original post. I have yet to see a contract that is a slam dunk, they all have good and bad. The company has a wish list, we have a wish list then we negotiate.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lowtimer77
Hangar Talk
19
11-13-2008 02:54 PM
