Saying NO and dealing with the NMB
05-29-2012, 07:05 AM
#11
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Yes, but the time to lose value is a few years off, allowing time.
05-29-2012, 07:07 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,275
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Who, or what, employee groups, other than management have pensions at Delta anymore?
Does the article take into account those who will likely work as long as the FAA and their Doctor will let them?
Does the article take into account those who will likely work as long as the FAA and their Doctor will let them?
Bar, A better question is who does not have pensions at Delta. Here is the list.
1. Pre merger Delta pilots.
Thats the entire list.
All other employee groups at both Delta and NW kept their earned and accrued pensions. The obligations are huge.
05-29-2012, 07:23 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,024
Maybe it's part of the chess game. Get the 76 seaters on property in much higher numbers and then go into bankruptcy due to some weak variable in the future on top of the "horrible" pension burden. Voila- pay rates hacked back again, pensions dumped, and now the judge laughs at the "scope" and allows the rj's to stay at full size while mainline is shrunk. There are already too many > 70 seaters at the regionals. Let the 50 seaters die off without losing negotiating capital. Force mainline to fly them if they are so needed. The pressure is on management, don't take less than you should before you are even the ammendable period of your contract. You already know that they are dealing ahead for the needed 717s. At least hold their feet to the fire for more if you are going to screw every other airline pilots negotiating stance on scope.
05-29-2012, 07:38 AM
#14
New Hire
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
What was said from the head of the NMB about what could happen if we decided to take the mediation route for bargaining? If we turned down the TA and management decided to slow it down? How long could it take and could we get retro pay?
Get Real!
05-29-2012, 09:13 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,275
Originally Posted by jtf560
Maybe it's part of the chess game. Get the 76 seaters on property in much higher numbers and then go into bankruptcy due to some weak variable in the future on top of the "horrible" pension burden. Voila- pay rates hacked back again, pensions dumped, and now the judge laughs at the "scope" and allows the rj's to stay at full size while mainline is shrunk. There are already too many > 70 seaters at the regionals. Let the 50 seaters die off without losing negotiating capital. Force mainline to fly them if they are so needed. The pressure is on management, don't take less than you should before you are even the ammendable period of your contract. You already know that they are dealing ahead for the needed 717s. At least hold their feet to the fire for more if you are going to screw every other airline pilots negotiating stance on scope.
The only flaw in your discussion is that management would like to grow the mainline not shrink. In order for this company to enjoy long term success and a rising stock price it has to grow. The was the key to SW for many years until they let their costs get out of control and lost the ability to grow 10 percent every year.
05-29-2012, 09:36 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by flyingdaddy810
How much time do you want to give up waiting around for more money? Add up the days, months, years that you wait for another agreement, and subtract the money you would have gotten during that time from from the money that you MIGHT get.
Get Real!
Get Real!
Agree with what acl said (except the part about being a big "if" if turned down)
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
If you turned it down, the company and the association are still bound to exchange openers 270 days prior to the amendable date. That would happen immediately.
If I were on the mec or nc I would go in with a list of changes to the current TA, and tell em we fix this. If they scoff, you give them another opener that rates everything on extended talks. The time value of fixing the deal goes both ways, and not let anyone tell you differently. The question comes down to stubbornness and willingness to move on and just fix the issues.
If and its a big if this gets turned down, I suspect we could see talks concluded in days if not a week or two and a 15 day memrat without road shows. Again a willingness to get it done by he MEC and the group so DAL can execute their business plan
I do not think there is one pilot on here or who reads this stuff that does not want to see their company go after every opportunity as long as we see linear returns and an investment on us that is commensurate with the sacrifices we have made and will make to allow this airline to dominate the industry for the next few decades.
If I were on the mec or nc I would go in with a list of changes to the current TA, and tell em we fix this. If they scoff, you give them another opener that rates everything on extended talks. The time value of fixing the deal goes both ways, and not let anyone tell you differently. The question comes down to stubbornness and willingness to move on and just fix the issues.
If and its a big if this gets turned down, I suspect we could see talks concluded in days if not a week or two and a 15 day memrat without road shows. Again a willingness to get it done by he MEC and the group so DAL can execute their business plan
I do not think there is one pilot on here or who reads this stuff that does not want to see their company go after every opportunity as long as we see linear returns and an investment on us that is commensurate with the sacrifices we have made and will make to allow this airline to dominate the industry for the next few decades.
05-29-2012, 09:45 AM
#17
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
How much would I give up turning down this TA? Well, gross around $20K a year or $14.5K net which is about $600 a pay period.
That's a lot of money. It's a 25% increase because I'm on the 88 which is getting 90 and the bump and what have you. Of course QOL might go down with the work rules changes but let's just focus on the fact I could buy acquire that dreamy F-150 crew cab I've always wanted.
Still going to turn it down based on scope alone. Although I have other reasons too, including pay.
But 255 yesterday becomes 325 tomorrow becomes who knows what later and so on.
That's a lot of money. It's a 25% increase because I'm on the 88 which is getting 90 and the bump and what have you. Of course QOL might go down with the work rules changes but let's just focus on the fact I could buy acquire that dreamy F-150 crew cab I've always wanted.
Still going to turn it down based on scope alone. Although I have other reasons too, including pay.
But 255 yesterday becomes 325 tomorrow becomes who knows what later and so on.
05-29-2012, 09:55 AM
#18
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
FtB:
Another classic. I figured you make one of the chopped up domestic 767. You posted it about two years ago.
Another classic. I figured you make one of the chopped up domestic 767. You posted it about two years ago.
05-29-2012, 10:23 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
How much would I give up turning down this TA? Well, gross around $20K a year or $14.5K net which is about $600 a pay period.
That's a lot of money. It's a 25% increase because I'm on the 88 which is getting 90 and the bump and what have you. Of course QOL might go down with the work rules changes but let's just focus on the fact I could buy acquire that dreamy F-150 crew cab I've always wanted.
Still going to turn it down based on scope alone. Although I have other reasons too, including pay.
But 255 yesterday becomes 325 tomorrow becomes who knows what later and so on.
That's a lot of money. It's a 25% increase because I'm on the 88 which is getting 90 and the bump and what have you. Of course QOL might go down with the work rules changes but let's just focus on the fact I could buy acquire that dreamy F-150 crew cab I've always wanted.
Still going to turn it down based on scope alone. Although I have other reasons too, including pay.
But 255 yesterday becomes 325 tomorrow becomes who knows what later and so on.
Every time we vote to outsource more airplanes that can do what we do at mainline we speed up the process of what your picture illustrates.
We will be left scratching our heads asking how we could have been so stupid. Why the ppt presentations given by DALPA didn't work out they way they said it would.
Of course many of the DALPA guys pushing this thing will be gone in ten years. They just want a pay bump of any sort as soon as possible to pad the retirement account. Never mind that if this proposal is sold and voted in it will cause stagnation all the way through the ranks. That whole "more productivity" thing can really bite. Not the correct way to go. Just vote no.
05-29-2012, 10:29 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
Every time we vote to outsource more airplanes that can do what we do at mainline we speed up the process of what your picture illustrates.
We will be left scratching our heads asking how we could have been so stupid. Why the ppt presentations given by DALPA didn't work out they way they said it would.
Of course many of the DALPA guys pushing this thing will be gone in ten years. They just want a pay bump of any sort as soon as possible to pad the retirement account. Never mind that if this proposal is sold and voted in it will cause stagnation all the way through the ranks. That whole "more productivity" thing can really bite. Not the correct way to go. Just vote no.
Every time we vote to outsource more airplanes that can do what we do at mainline we speed up the process of what your picture illustrates.
We will be left scratching our heads asking how we could have been so stupid. Why the ppt presentations given by DALPA didn't work out they way they said it would.
Of course many of the DALPA guys pushing this thing will be gone in ten years. They just want a pay bump of any sort as soon as possible to pad the retirement account. Never mind that if this proposal is sold and voted in it will cause stagnation all the way through the ranks. That whole "more productivity" thing can really bite. Not the correct way to go. Just vote no.
