|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1200887)
Oh, is that to compare with the fallacy you have of the company negotiating more and improving the TA? His "fallacy" has a lot more likelyhood of coming true than your "fallacy" does. If the TA is turned down, don't you think it would be in the company's best in to proceed with their plan B? Here's why, if they agree to better terms if this TA is turned down they are opening themselves up to all future TA's being turned down because "they will always come back and negotiate a little bit better deal." This has far more ranging consequences for management than they might want to deal with...
I just thought the better of it and edited out a cheapshot because it's just not worth it. Try and debate the subject, not harangue and insult people. You've lost the debate when that happens. Denny Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have? |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1200899)
If I get what you are asking, you are talking about a major Force Majure event. Any court is going to allow the company to do what they need to do to survive. I have to agree with what Tsquare said days ago with regard to this language, it's standard boiler plate and actually defines some events as NOT being FM. So from that stand point, it restricts the company's ability to claim FM. (I guess my glass is half full today for some reason:))
Under the TA, we don't have any influence with DCI but we do with Delta... Denny Thanks. Must be because we live in the NW thing! Fiig |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1200971)
If the LECs voted unanimously, your thought process may be on the mark, however they didnt. Not even close. What you're saying doesn't match up with the numerous LECs who voted no as well as the few who voted yes, but only because they felt it should be left for the pilots to decide.
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have? |
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
(Post 1200969)
As far as Air Tran pilots. NO. The SLC rep said the deal was between DAL and Boeing. DAL would not enter into any deal that would bring the pilots with them. By dealing with Boeing only it avoids that. Getting it in writing was not asked but I do have a few more things I want to see in writing as well. Not sure if it will work on those points either. Fiig |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1200899)
If I get what you are asking, you are talking about a major Force Majure event.
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1200899)
I have to agree with what Tsquare said days ago with regard to this language, it's standard boiler plate and actually defines some events as NOT being FM. So from that stand point, it restricts the company's ability to claim FM.
|
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 1200981)
No, actually I am referring to something well short of FM like an economic downturn and/or shrinking the mainline fleet for that or a myriad of other reasons.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios. |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1200980)
Thx-respect your decision. As to the AT pilots, why not put in writing? No one thought the TWA pilots would be successful in their lawsuit against alpa.
|
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 1200981)
No, actually I am referring to something well short of FM like an economic downturn and/or shrinking the mainline fleet for that or a myriad of other reasons.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios. |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1200971)
If the LECs voted unanimously, your thought process may be on the mark, however they didnt. Not even close. What you're saying doesn't match up with the numerous LECs who voted no as well as the few who voted yes, but only because they felt it should be left for the pilots to decide.
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have? Why not direct cheap shots at them? Well, if I actually have to spell it out for you, you won't understand but.....It's called "professionalism." Here is a definition for you from Merriam-Webster: The skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well. Denny |
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 1200981)
No, actually I am referring to something well short of FM like an economic downturn and/or shrinking the mainline fleet for that or a myriad of other reasons.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios. 42. “Circumstance over which the Company does not have control,” for the purposes of 33 Section 1, means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster; 34 labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a 35 government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel 36 supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial 37 suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the 38 Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war 39 emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s 40 delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over 41 which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other 42 supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the 43 Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current 44 operations. Notice the bold specifically notes the state of the economy is NOT a circumstance etc. Denny |
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
(Post 1200973)
Got my back on that one Denny!
Thanks. Must be because we live in the NW thing! Fiig Yeah, it's a nice day out today! Must be why my glass is half full!!:) Denny |
"Merely asking for more is a “fool’s errand” at best."
DALPA LAX LEC suggests that line pilots who are skeptical of the negotiators' efficacy are FOOLS. Think I'm taking his statement to an extreme he didn't intend? The sentiment is a recurring theme throughout the communique: "Do you believe the expert’s advice or do you proceed with your own assumptions? We chose to believe those with direct contact with management and a mountain more experience in negotiations than we have." This argument is especially useful when dealing with a pilot group, with the common psychological profile found prevalent of conformists who fall in line with "authority". He argues that they had access to special and secret information, and that ignorant line pilots need to just trust the "experts" and fall in line. "The history of airline union leadership has viciously provided example after example of not being able to take advantage of fleeting opportunities, and in the end, not putting this value into the pockets of their membership they represent." He really says it all himself about DALPA here, doesn't he? In a rush to seal the deal. I would love to see this guy negotiate with a used car salesman. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1200718)
My buddy in LA says these guys are trustworthy, and he has known the Capt rep for many years. But, you guys think this is a sell job. What if it isn't? That summary is pretty extensive. Maybe you guys should attend a road show and ask some big questions instead of discounting it because you are still upset.
I always have respected your opinions and contributions you have brought to APC. However, I have to disagree with your your buddy's description of the LAX Capt Rep. I have known him for several years as well. Spent lots of time with him in the cockpit as well. I was shocked when he was voted into that position to be quite frank. He has years of ALPA service including volunteering to stay in the loop between his current position and I believe the last elected spot he held, SO rep. For someone with that much invested in ALPA, I expected him to be up on current affairs, particularly at other ALPA airlines. Not so. For someone who told me there was no way AirTran rejected a TA that would have paid their Capts more than him, it was amusing the next day to see him corkscrew through the roof when an AirTran jumpseater laid out their rejected TA. Point is, he is a good ALPAholic and loyal to the MEC. I did not find him to be very informed on the industry, understanding of the pilots needs or wants, and lacking situational social awareness skills. His endorsement of the TA makes me ? it even more. Point is, I am not upset about this TA as you describe. I have read the entire TA and have concluded that it is inadequate in several areas. Additionally, 20+ years of experience have taught me know that the road shows are not objective. If they were, this TA would probably actually pass. |
Flybywire,
Why don't you email all 3 LAX LEC guys with your questions and concerns? Log onto the DALPA website and go to Contact us. I bet you will get a response. My buddy out there says they are good like that. |
Originally Posted by Flybywine
(Post 1201189)
I would love to see this guy negotiate with a used car salesman.
Maybe ALPA should offer a car-buying service. Then perhaps we would get something worthwhile for our dues money--instead of the usual ALPA arrogance, obfuscation, and self-serving, out-of-touch propaganda we've been bombarded with recently. On second thought, never mind. As soon as we bought the ALPA-negotiated car, we'd turn around and they would be getting a kickback and a job in management from the dealer. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1201195)
Flybywire,
Why don't you email all 3 LAX LEC guys with your questions and concerns? Log onto the DALPA website and go to Contact us. I bet you will get a response. My buddy out there says they are good like that. You can also find us under "My Reps" in the ALPA iPhone App. We strive to answer all emails and calls within a day. |
Originally Posted by BoydKelly
(Post 1201231)
Our emails and phone numbers are also on the update and on our web page http://dal16.alpa.org along with a contact form that emails all three of us.
We strive to answer all emails and calls within a day. Welcome! Time permitting, I hope you will engage in the debate on this forum for the next couple weeks. Your insights will be highly valuable for all of us. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1201237)
Boyd-
Welcome! Time permitting, I hope you will engage in the debate on this forum for the next couple weeks. Your insights will be highly valuable for all of us. I'm in long term read only mode. Hopefully pointing out our contact details won't get anybody sued ;) |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1200744)
Maybe, maybe not. The reps were briefed extensively by the negotiators and if this was the case, and they made a completely compelling argument, then the vote should have been unanimous in favor of the TA. As it stands five reps question the data, and some have written as to why. That point leaves a lot to question.
Yes, there is risk with saying no. There is also risk with saying yes. There are work rule concessions in this agreement, the effect of those is not fully known. There are scope changes, with language that has not been tested in the real world. One needs to look at what just happened. It is unheard of. Two months of talks and a comprehensive TA. The decision makers for the company were present almost nonstop. That means other things were put on hold to get to this deal. That right there should tell you how bad DAL wants this deal done. The RJ DCI changes allow DAL to do many things, namely get out of money losing contracts and reduce their overall debt level. My research seems to point to a level that would allow significantly increased borrowing numbers after this deal is done. With the time to a TA, the effort involved to get here and an apparent timeline that is in line with AMR's loss of exclusivity(Sept 29th), many things pointed to a TA being voted on and ratified by Late Aug. We are looking at this deal possibly being done by June 30th, two months ahead of the assumed deadline. Now none of this is fore certain, but recall what you heard and what you have seen from everyone involved prior to the TA. I would be surprised to the the "go" time altering slightly. If this TA passes it just gives DAL more time before they start acting. DAL brought in Mr Chase to gain significant access to the Capital markets six months ago. DAL has bought a refinery, we invested in AeroMexico, GOL, and many one off purchases are probably in the works. That all adds up to a half a billion dollars. DAL just committed 2 bln to modernization of international airport checkin counters, Sky Clubs, and gate houses. 2bln! They just committed to ordering 188 replacement/growth airplanes as well. DAL has the cash flow. Keep that in mind. What they need access to is 2-5 bln to make a major asset purchase. This TA sets them up for a very interesting Fall and Winter. The business plan needs a debt level to go the preferred route. It is a big question on if they would rework the deal that would add 140-200 million by Jan 1 or not. I look at what I see possibly coming down the road, and the revenue growth potential from it, and I ask myself; If I were CEO, would I risk the preferred route for the cost of one 777? Its a question I ask daily, and will until the vote closes. I know what I would do, but I am not the CEO. I too grew up in a family that had a father that was a big time exec over 40K employees. Labor contracts et al were just part of dinner table discussion. Strategy and the cost benefit of fighting the deals were also discussed. There is a line that makes the risk worth more than the reward with any one of these situations. We all agree with that. There are also intangibles in this industry that cannot be measured. a few hundred million is minimal in the overall scheme of things with you have a 36 bln dollar company that could possibly be a 40+ billion dollar company with the correct acquisitions. All I ask, from a "yes," "no" or a maybe voter is to think strategically and for yourself. Read and listen to what is put out there from the union and others. Dismiss what you see as non-meaningful, then take a step back, look at what RA has said and all of the LCA meetings, investor calls et al, look at what the analysis are saying, and what is going on in the industry before making a decision. *Of note the Bankruptcy judge will hear AMR's case on throwing out the APA's contract before the close of voting. If it is in fact thrown out, the timeline changes significantly and DAL will move immediately as it will become a free for all. If the judge refuses to throw out the contract prior to the close of TA voting, the timeline remains unchanged for DAL, UCAL et al. Watch these events and change your vote if needed. ACL - great post. I wished DALPA would present a more balanced view of this TA than the total sales job that is being pushed. The viewpoints of the DTW and MSP reps should be vetted (the same way as NNPs are vetted) and forwarded to the membership. We shouldn't have to rely on APC to get copies of some of these e-mails (not as enamored as the LAX LEC's e-mail as Bill Lumberg is). |
Originally Posted by BoydKelly
(Post 1201249)
Lawyers won't let us.
I'm in long term read only mode. Hopefully pointing out our contact details won't get anybody sued ;) ALPA needs new lawyers. The ones we have now are awful. |
Originally Posted by DAL73n
(Post 1201251)
ACL - great post. I wished DALPA would present a more balanced view of this TA than the total sales job that is being pushed. The viewpoints of the DTW and MSP reps should be vetted (the same way as NNPs are vetted) and forwarded to the membership. We shouldn't have to rely on APC to get copies of some of these e-mails (not as enamored as the LAX LEC's e-mail as Bill Lumberg is).
|
Originally Posted by CVG767A
(Post 1200778)
I'm heading to the CVG road show today. Any suggested questions?
|
Originally Posted by BoydKelly
(Post 1201249)
Lawyers won't let us.
I'm in long term read only mode. Hopefully pointing out our contact details won't get anybody sued ;) Totally unsat man. Carl |
CVG Roadshow
From DALPA Forums:
Here are some of the highlights: COMPENSATION -Total contract improvement of $420 million per year.* - From the survey, pilots wanted to convert profit sharing "risky" into guarenteed money "payrates".* -MD88 pay brought up to MD90 -Matching the MD90 to the A319/320 rate was never discussed at the MEC level.* This shocked quite a few CVG pilots. -The average pay hours for 2011 was 87 hours.* That's why the union used 87 hours in their projections. STAFFING - They expect 250 pilots to take the early out. -Reduction of 300 pilots for efficiencies (ALV, 30 day month throughout summer) -Addition of 72 pilots for know absense reporting and new staffing formula. -Impact is neutral. SCOPE -88 717's begin arriving in 2nd qtr of 2013.* All aircraft should be on property within the next 3 years.* The planes come from Boeing and the MEC chairman stated that Boeing won't be transferring any pilots. -15.5% reduction in seats flown by DCI. -Sick leave:* 2,300 pilots used 0 sick time in 2011.* 85% used less than 100 hours.* Of the 15% that used over 100 hours, 2/3 of those pilots ended up on long term disability.* Somebody else can add the other nuggets. |
I would clarify the compensation improvement. That is what I have heard for 2015 valuation, not 2013 and not 2014 by a long shot.
Ask if we got a bargaining credit for the rj cpa lease changes. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1201295)
Boyd, I'm not in your council, I'm in 20. I've said for the longest time that our biggest failing as pilots is ALLOWING our union to become a top-down organization. MEC types here jumped on me right away proclaiming I know nothing of the ALPA constitution and bylaws. Your comment bolded above is just another example that I am correct, and I really wish I wasn't. Those lawyers work for YOU sir! They have no business preventing you from a damn thing much less performing your most important role which is communicating with us. Not just pointing out dry facts in one direction, but communicating...back and forth with those you represent.
Totally unsat man. Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1201499)
I would clarify the compensation improvement. That is what I have heard for 2015 valuation, not 2013 and not 2014 by a long shot.
Ask if we got a bargaining credit for the rj cpa lease changes. |
"Restored disability plan language (C2K) has no value - unless you find yourself unable to hold a First Class medical certificate"
Sounds good, but not true. TA restores part of disability, but not to C2K. Since the creation of the DAL D&S (1972) pay was 50% of your highest 12 months out of your last 36 months. For the rest of your life!!! That part was not restored. Question on same subject: Does the TA increase the DC contribution for a pilot on disability? If I understand correctly, working pilots receive 14% of their gross in total DC contributions, while disabled pilots receive 22% (to represent the amount they would be getting if they were flying a full month. This came into effect when the lifetime disability benefit was changed to disability until retirement age.). I do see the change in the TA as good positive improvement for the pilot group. I hope to never need this benefit. However, it is not restoration back to C2K. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1201295)
Boyd, I'm not in your council, I'm in 20. I've said for the longest time that our biggest failing as pilots is ALLOWING our union to become a top-down organization. MEC types here jumped on me right away proclaiming I know nothing of the ALPA constitution and bylaws. Your comment bolded above is just another example that I am correct, and I really wish I wasn't. Those lawyers work for YOU sir! They have no business preventing you from a damn thing much less performing your most important role which is communicating with us. Not just pointing out dry facts in one direction, but communicating...back and forth with those you represent.
Totally unsat man. Carl Both the UAL and DAL injunctions are what hinders this ability. I am bound by the court to follow that and stop pilots from violating it. That can not be done on a public anonymous forum. Period. In the UAL injunction they subpoenaed personal phones, computers, hard drives, texts, IM and forum posts. In a USAirways case the court heard testimony that an anonymous post on a Yahoo! financial message board was a concerted effort. It's just a legal impossibility with the injunctions and the fact anyone can join and say what they feel with impunity. The next time an airline files a subpoena for a forum, it will likely include many of the airline ones like this. I just wanted to post once making sure that guys can contact us. Fly safe y'all. |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1200983)
Yep-it ain't "standard boilerplate" IMO.
From the NWA 2006 Contract: B.3.d.(2) In addition, except as provided in Section 1 B.3.d.(1) ��, the Company shall make reasonable efforts,........ B.3.b. Before any determination that the Company and the Acquired Airline constitute a single transportation system, the Company and the Association shall make a good faith effort to agree..... It is understood that the Company and the Association will make every reasonable effort to establish....... Exception: The Company shall be excused from the obligationset forth in subparagraph D.3. above in the event of a “circumstance over which the Company does not have control” as that phrase is defined in Section 2 O. The term “Emergency” shall include a situation beyond the Company’s Control as well as a situation or occurrence of a serious nature, developing suddenly and unexpectedly, and demanding immediate action. the Company shall make best efforts to reposition the pilot for the trip. The Company shall make best efforts to provide pilots at least 30 calendar days notice of the offer of voluntary furloughs, with a copy to the Association. No notice or pay shall be required if the furlough is the result of circumstances beyond the Company’s control. 1-F-2 Changed Circumstances The following will govern the Company's obligations under this Section 1-F in the event the Company experiences changed economic circumstances beyond the Company's control: In addition to the Company's ability to reduce flight operations under the terms and conditions described in paragraph F-2-a (Substantial Economic Change), the commitments and protections described in paragraph F-1 (Block Hours Guarantee) above may be modified if and only to the extent that the Company demonstrates that any such modification is a direct result of a circumstance beyond the Company's control. 20-F-4-h Notwithstanding the five percent (5%) limit SSC consultation above, in the event of a major disruption to service outside of the Company’s control (such as that created by the 1981 Air Traffic Controller’s strike), the Company may revise schedules to the extent necessary to maintain the highest level of service possible. “Circumstance beyond the Company’s Control” means an act of nature; an ongoing labor dispute; grounding or repossession of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a government agency or a court order; loss or destruction of the Company’s aircraft; involuntary reduction in flying operations due either to governmental action(s)/requirement(s) or to a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical materials for the Company’s operation; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war emergency; a terrorist act, or a substantial delay in the delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery, provided that one of these listed occurrences has a material and substantial impact on the Company. The Company will be excused from compliance with Paragraphs C.1, C.2, C.6, D.2, and D.3 above for the period of time that a Circumstance Beyond the Company’s Control is the cause of such non-compliance. The Company will be excused from compliance with such minimum scheduled aircraft block hours for the period of time that either a Circumstance beyond the Company’s Control..... In the event that the Company’s planned aircraft deliveries do not take place as scheduled due to conditions beyond the Company’s control, then for 12 months from the scheduled delivery date, so long as the scheduled deliveries remain firm orders to be delivered as soon as circumstances permit, the aircraft shall be counted as though they had been timely delivered. If the Company is unable to operate Company aircraft due to conditions beyond the Company’s control, then the Company may count such aircraft as in operation for purposes of b.(1) There were more examples but I got bored. That was a only about 10 minutes of research. Looks pretty "boilerplate" to me! |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1202429)
Really?
From the NWA 2006 Contract: From the current Fedex CBA: From the United CBA: From the CAL CBA: From the AA CBA: Don't let your opinion get in the way of facts. There were more examples but I got bored. That was a only about 10 minutes of research. Looks pretty "boilerplate" to me! I would have preferred it to read: "Does not include "domestic or International" economy, Capacity Purchase Agreement omissions, fleet renewal issues, AD's that may cause the company to become non-complaint if over 90 days, the inability of the entity to properly staff and maintain the mainline domestic and or international block hr plan to remain in compliance with these ratios" and then the rest of the definition. I will agree or submit that this language WILL NOT effect us in the next three years. We will be in a ramp up period as we go through the trigger hurdles to the final ratios and DCI and MBH ratios. Going beyond 2015 when there are larger brighter more important issues, we will, more than likely, not tighten this definition and focus on the 100 seat jets issue as the 70 seat aircraft needs a solution, retirements become problematic for operational integrity, and so on. At a point beyond this, the non compliance language is key. *boilerplate language can and has gotten companies and pilot groups in trouble. It is not limited to this industry either. |
I love how you guys just blow this letter off as scare tactics or a sales job. You refuse to accept that they had advice from professional negotiators, attorneys, and even the NMB. Yet, somehow you know better than they do. You're convinced that Delta wants this so badly they are just going to open up there coffers and throw some more money at us. This is simply business to them. I tend to believe all the guys on the inside of these negotiations that this was all that we were going to get. It would be a mistake to turn this down. Steve Dickson said today that the 717's are an all or nothing deal based on this TA (I know, another scare tactic). That is a lot of jobs and movement for our pilots that you are risking if we turn the TA down in hope for a few small gains that probably aren't even possible. Mainline domestic flying will go from 52% to over 60% with this TA. You can't argue that. While I'm not happy about more 76 seaters, it's worth the trade off in my opinion. As others have said, I don't see a legitimate option of turning this deal down and getting more money from the company.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands