What Happens If The TA Is Rejected?
06-04-2012, 05:58 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
What Happens If The TA Is Rejected?
I wanted to pose this question for everyone to discuss. I have a strong opinion as to the answer but I want to give everyone a chance to state their view.
I copied this quote from a thread at DALPA. It pretty much jives with my personal view.
"Talked with Larry Deist, one of my council 44 reps, today in Atlanta. I want to quote him but I did not write it down. When asked what is the contingency plan if this TA gets voted down, he looked me straight in the eye and said we would be BACK IN NEGOTIATIONS early in JULY."
Discuss amongst ourselves.
I copied this quote from a thread at DALPA. It pretty much jives with my personal view.
"Talked with Larry Deist, one of my council 44 reps, today in Atlanta. I want to quote him but I did not write it down. When asked what is the contingency plan if this TA gets voted down, he looked me straight in the eye and said we would be BACK IN NEGOTIATIONS early in JULY."
Discuss amongst ourselves.
06-04-2012, 06:21 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 302
This is what I have been trying to tell people... if we VOTE NO on this TA, the company and union would get together and make some improvements to the contract. We would be voting again in August.
Unfortunately, this pilot group has fallen for the spin. Hopefully it isn't too late.
Unfortunately, this pilot group has fallen for the spin. Hopefully it isn't too late.
06-04-2012, 06:29 AM
#3
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
If we vote it down, what would the negotiators go back and ask for? Pay? Scope? Retirement? The reserve system? All of the above? None of the above? Ask yourself as if you were a negotiator.. Why is tsquare or Carl... or ftb... or slowplay...voting no... what is important to them... and how can I improve the contract to suit HIS needs? How do I know what parts of the TA were acceptable in their eyes, and which weren't?
The short honest answer is that you cannot know without a new survey. Before you say we already have one, think of Schoedinger's cat. We have modified the experiment even though we have not accepted anything that has been agreed to because we now know a little more about what management will give/take.. so we need to review and re-tool our strategy. Those that think management will come back in 48 hours are delusional. They have even LESS of a clue as to why the TA would have been voted down... talk amongst yourselves...
When it comes down to the vote, I couldn't care less how you vote, but if you are voting no with the premise of a quick re-negotiation, you are kidding yourselves. It might not drag out for a long time (my bet is that it will though) and then again, it very well might.
The short honest answer is that you cannot know without a new survey. Before you say we already have one, think of Schoedinger's cat. We have modified the experiment even though we have not accepted anything that has been agreed to because we now know a little more about what management will give/take.. so we need to review and re-tool our strategy. Those that think management will come back in 48 hours are delusional. They have even LESS of a clue as to why the TA would have been voted down... talk amongst yourselves...
When it comes down to the vote, I couldn't care less how you vote, but if you are voting no with the premise of a quick re-negotiation, you are kidding yourselves. It might not drag out for a long time (my bet is that it will though) and then again, it very well might.
06-04-2012, 06:37 AM
#4
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I see no downside in voting no. None.
06-04-2012, 06:58 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by scambo1
I see no downside in voting no. None.
Therefore, you will not make an informed decision.
06-04-2012, 07:01 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
Originally Posted by scambo1
I see no downside in voting no. None.
The Bunnies would have you believe that "OMG, they could come back with something worse!!".
True, but we could also turn that one down as well. It's only worse if we allow it to happen.
If we do NOTHING:
1) We keep full profit sharing, going into a year where DAL will likely produce it's best profits in history.
2) We keep our present sick policy, which we have a grievance win preventing management from hara...um, "counseling" us.
3) We still cap 70 AND 76 seat RJs at a total of 255 no matter what.
4) Flying over the ALV for reserves is still voluntary.
5) Management still needs to spend megabucks on 50 seaters and THEN still is left operating them at a crushing CASM.
6) Guys that are going to retire, are still going to retire.
This TA is all about temporary upside, permanent downside. Why do you think the pay is front loaded, but the retirement back loaded?
Management HAS to execute their business plan. "Doing nothing" actually transfers the risk sharing, which the company would dearly love us to do, back to the company where it belongs.
This whole expidited timeline is just a repeat of the merger. We were told that "we have to get this done NOW, we have to get to SOC to syngergize the company!", and as a result, no cherry picking was done...no thoughtful picking and choosing to really make a great agreement. Only token modifications were made, with a little cheap money thrown around, at little to no long term cost to the company.
Seeing how well that worked for them in the past, the company engineered a whole new reason to need a "expidited agreement", with exactly the same result. A zero to low cost contract to them, that locks the pilot group in for another 3-5 years.
Nu
Last edited by NuGuy; 06-04-2012 at 07:21 AM.
06-04-2012, 07:15 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by tsquare
If we vote it down, what would the negotiators go back and ask for? Pay? Scope? Retirement? The reserve system? All of the above? None of the above? Ask yourself as if you were a negotiator.. Why is tsquare or Carl... or ftb... or slowplay...voting no... what is important to them... and how can I improve the contract to suit HIS needs? How do I know what parts of the TA were acceptable in their eyes, and which weren't?
The short honest answer is that you cannot know without a new survey. Before you say we already have one, think of Schoedinger's cat. We have modified the experiment even though we have not accepted anything that has been agreed to because we now know a little more about what management will give/take.. so we need to review and re-tool our strategy. Those that think management will come back in 48 hours are delusional. They have even LESS of a clue as to why the TA would have been voted down... talk amongst yourselves...
When it comes down to the vote, I couldn't care less how you vote, but if you are voting no with the premise of a quick re-negotiation, you are kidding yourselves. It might not drag out for a long time (my bet is that it will though) and then again, it very well might.
The short honest answer is that you cannot know without a new survey. Before you say we already have one, think of Schoedinger's cat. We have modified the experiment even though we have not accepted anything that has been agreed to because we now know a little more about what management will give/take.. so we need to review and re-tool our strategy. Those that think management will come back in 48 hours are delusional. They have even LESS of a clue as to why the TA would have been voted down... talk amongst yourselves...
When it comes down to the vote, I couldn't care less how you vote, but if you are voting no with the premise of a quick re-negotiation, you are kidding yourselves. It might not drag out for a long time (my bet is that it will though) and then again, it very well might.
06-04-2012, 07:23 AM
#8
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
A no vote puts us back into negotiations in early July. RA and crew want to get this deal done. They threw us a low-ball offer, which our negotiating committee bit on.
Time for us to send it back. Step away from the kool-aid and vote NO!
Time for us to send it back. Step away from the kool-aid and vote NO!
06-04-2012, 07:24 AM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by NuGuy
Agreed.
The Bunnies would have you believe that "OMG, they could come back with something worse!!".
True, but we could also turn that one down as well. It's only worse if we allow it to happen.
If we do NOTHING:
1) We keep full profit sharing, going into a year where DAL will likely produce it's best profits in history.
2) We keep our present sick policy, which we have a grievance win preventing management from hara...um, "counseling" us.
3) We still cap 70 AND 76 seat RJs at a total of 255 no matter what.
4) Flying over the ALV for reserves is still voluntary.
5) Management still needs to spend megabucks on 50 seaters and THEN still is left operating them at a crushing CASM.
6) Guys that are going to retire, are still going to retire.
This TA is all about temporary upside, permanent downside. Why do you think the pay is front loaded, but the retirement back loaded?
Management HAS to execute their business plan. "Doing nothing" actually transfers the risk sharing, which the company would dearly love us to do, back to the company where it belongs.
This whole expidited timeline is just a repeat of the merger. We were told that "we have to get this done NOW, we have to get to SOC to syngergize the company!", and as a result, no cherry picking was done...no thoughtful picking and choosing to really make a great agreement. Only token modifications were made, with a little cheap money thrown around, at little to no long term cost to the company.
Seeing how well that worked for them in the past, the company engineered a whole new reason to need a "expidited agreement", with exactly the same result. A zero to low cost contract to them, that locks the pilot group in for another 3-5 years.
Nu
The Bunnies would have you believe that "OMG, they could come back with something worse!!".
True, but we could also turn that one down as well. It's only worse if we allow it to happen.
If we do NOTHING:
1) We keep full profit sharing, going into a year where DAL will likely produce it's best profits in history.
2) We keep our present sick policy, which we have a grievance win preventing management from hara...um, "counseling" us.
3) We still cap 70 AND 76 seat RJs at a total of 255 no matter what.
4) Flying over the ALV for reserves is still voluntary.
5) Management still needs to spend megabucks on 50 seaters and THEN still is left operating them at a crushing CASM.
6) Guys that are going to retire, are still going to retire.
This TA is all about temporary upside, permanent downside. Why do you think the pay is front loaded, but the retirement back loaded?
Management HAS to execute their business plan. "Doing nothing" actually transfers the risk sharing, which the company would dearly love us to do, back to the company where it belongs.
This whole expidited timeline is just a repeat of the merger. We were told that "we have to get this done NOW, we have to get to SOC to syngergize the company!", and as a result, no cherry picking was done...no thoughtful picking and choosing to really make a great agreement. Only token modifications were made, with a little cheap money thrown around, at little to no long term cost to the company.
Seeing how well that worked for them in the past, the company engineered a whole new reason to need a "expidited agreement", with exactly the same result. A zero to low cost contract to them, that locks the pilot group in for another 3-5 years.
Nu
we still have pay a lot lower than SWA
we still have 311 50 seat RJs through 2015
we still have 11 hour 3 day trips to Hawaii and West Coast from the East
we still have terrible sick leave
we still have 200 old guys that won't leave for an early out
06-04-2012, 07:24 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
Originally Posted by CVG767A
Great post, T. We might get something better if we turn this down; it's not going to be a fast process, though.
It may be in the company's best interest to throw some more beans our way and get the agreement done quickly...same as it was before.
Nu
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
