Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 2 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   It's so simple (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/68181-its-so-simple.html)

johnso29 06-16-2012 06:53 AM
Originally Posted by ualheavy (Post 1213248)
My spouse is the Delta pilot in the family and I'm with UCAL. She will make more as am md88fo than I do as a 777fo if the TA passes thus becoming the breadwinner of the family.
I am lucky to be able to see and feel both sides of having a TA to look at versus fighting for one for close to 3 years now at UCAL with no NMB release in sight. It is interesting watching the Delta TA presented 6 months ahead of the amendable date yet most can't seem to grasp the opportunity presented them. Management doesn't seem to present many opportunities at the negotiating table any more and the NMB is no help either. Sure this contract could probably be a little better but I think your NC got everything they could at this time. Take it and fight another battle 2 years from now or join us at UCAL in misery.

(not sure how the wife is going to vote but she lives with my UCAL frustration everyday and knowing management controls the next opportunity whenever that is)
Interesting perspective. How do you feel about our TA's Sec 1? This is an honest question. No flame intended. It seems other UAL pilots(a very small representation I'm sure) have been on here chastising anyone considering a YES vote because it will destroy any chance of UAL bringing back 51+ seat jets to mainline.

alfaromeo 06-16-2012 07:04 AM
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1213242)
It's been one of the great psychological successes of management/DALPA. They've redefined negotiations for many pilots. Used to be that concessions only belonged in negotiations when the company's finances were bad. Now after a decade of this mindset, DALPA has agreed with management that concessions are now part of negotiations even when your company is making billions. The BS about sucking it up because all these years of profits will provide us the leverage to regain our industry leading contract, is now replaced by DALPA saying our survey requests were invalid because they are "out of context". Now every gain in our TA is fully funded by concessions in other areas. And this during a time of record past profits, record current profits, and record forecasted future profits.

Carl
This is one the silliest things you have ever said. They are called negotiations not demands. If you think that you can walk into a negotiation and just tell the other side to go pound sand on all their issues, then you are delusional. If you think that the NMB will allow you to proceed in negotiations where you don't address any of their issues you are even more delusional.

Even in bankruptcy, both the Delta and Northwest MEC's extracted concessions from management. They had the entire weight of the court and the bankruptcy laws backing them up, yet they made concessions.

During the NWA strike in 1998, you ended up with an up contract but concessions were made. In C2K we had a massive up contract but concessions were made. Trying to paint this as some new development is to ignore the entire history of negotiations for decades.

Your last statement that gains in other sections of the contract are fully funded by concessions is just a flat out lie. You know this is a lie and yet you try to repeat as if it were a fact. The net gain for pilots is over $1 billion. That is net.

johnso29 06-16-2012 07:16 AM
Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1213260)
This is one the silliest things you have ever said. They are called negotiations not demands. If you think that you can walk into a negotiation and just tell the other side to go pound sand on all their issues, then you are delusional. If you think that the NMB will allow you to proceed in negotiations where you don't address any of their issues you are even more delusional.

Even in bankruptcy, both the Delta and Northwest MEC's extracted concessions from management. They had the entire weight of the court and the bankruptcy laws backing them up, yet they made concessions.

During the NWA strike in 1998, you ended up with an up contract but concessions were made. In C2K we had a massive up contract but concessions were made. Trying to paint this as some new development is to ignore the entire history of negotiations for decades.

Your last statement that gains in other sections of the contract are fully funded by concessions is just a flat out lie. You know this is a lie and yet you try to repeat as if it were a fact. The net gain for pilots is over $1 billion. That is net.
Well actually, you can. But the results aren't favorable. Look where it got APA and USAPA. :D

Carl Spackler 06-16-2012 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1213260)
This is one the silliest things you have ever said. They are called negotiations not demands. If you think that you can walk into a negotiation and just tell the other side to go pound sand on all their issues, then you are delusional. If you think that the NMB will allow you to proceed in negotiations where you don't address any of their issues you are even more delusional.
The only delusion is your continuation of lying about the process and the NMB. You haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Concessions have their place and always have when you're company is in trouble. When you're making record profits, concessions have no place. This used to be ALPA's history and is the main reason we're not working under 1930's conditions. The new ALPA of which you are a disciple, are believers that concessions are the new norm regardless of your company's finances. This TA is the worst example of it as all gains are financed by concessions in other areas.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1213260)
Even in bankruptcy, both the Delta and Northwest MEC's extracted concessions from management. They had the entire weight of the court and the bankruptcy laws backing them up, yet they made concessions.
While our respective unions handed over much greater concessions on our side for a massive NET loss.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1213260)
During the NWA strike in 1998, you ended up with an up contract but concessions were made. In C2K we had a massive up contract but concessions were made. Trying to paint this as some new development is to ignore the entire history of negotiations for decades.
It's an obvious matter of degree. In 1998, our finances were not good. We were still suffering badly from the LBO. Your C2K may have a few small concessions, but overall it was a huge NET gain. This TA is NET neutral.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1213260)
Your last statement that gains in other sections of the contract are fully funded by concessions is just a flat out lie. You know this is a lie and yet you try to repeat as if it were a fact. The net gain for pilots is over $1 billion. That is net.
The only lie is your perpetuation of this nonsense. Go argue with the executive leadership who are publicly stating that this TA fully funds the investment they are making in the employees. Go argue with our reps who have also called this contract cost neutral. But you'd have to take those reps off your ignore list to do that.

And speaking of lying, how about that huge whopper you told the other day that this TA provides for an additional 1,000 jobs at mainline. Did you know you've still not apologized for that lie?

Carl

Boomer 06-16-2012 07:35 AM
Originally Posted by groundstop (Post 1213144)
A NO vote is a NO brainer in my opinion.

This isn't flame bait or anything. Why would you vote in a contract that has concessions?
If I can sum up how some YES voters are defending this concessionary contract:
  • Delta wanted 82 seats at DCI, we held them to 76-seaters, and 70 more of them.
  • Delta lets us convert our iffy 15% profit sharing into a solid 4/8.5/3/3% COLA.
  • The Republic carve-out was actually read by the lawyers this time.
  • 300 furloughs are mitigated by 300 early-outs, probably.
  • This keeps us ahead of AA, UCon, and USAir.
  • It will only suck for three years.
  • We'll do better next time!

Carl Spackler 06-16-2012 07:45 AM
Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1213278)
If I can sum up how some YES voters are defending this concessionary contract:
  • Delta wanted 82 seats at DCI, we held them to 76-seaters, and 70 more of them.
  • Delta lets us convert our iffy 15% profit sharing into a solid 4/8.5/3/3% COLA.
  • The Republic carve-out was actually read by the lawyers this time.
  • 300 furloughs are mitigated by 300 early-outs, probably.
  • This keeps us ahead of AA, UCon, and USAir.
  • It will only suck for three years.
  • We'll do better next time!
The only thing you missed is the part about the NMB saying they won't compare us to SWA, and they'll park us indefinitely if we don't accept management's first offer.

Other than that Boomer, you pretty much nailed it! :D

Carl

Columbia 06-16-2012 07:49 AM
Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1213278)
If I can sum up how some YES voters are defending this concessionary contract:
  • Delta wanted 82 seats at DCI, we held them to 76-seaters, and 70 more of them.
  • Delta lets us convert our iffy 15% profit sharing into a solid 4/8.5/3/3% COLA.
  • The Republic carve-out was actually read by the lawyers this time.
  • 300 furloughs are mitigated by 300 early-outs, probably.
  • This keeps us ahead of AA, UCon, and USAir.
  • It will only suck for three years.
  • We'll do better next time!
Boomer for the win. I didn't realize the negotiators are a bunch of line pilots. Ayfkm? Why aren't we hiring a bunch of high powered, professional negotiators? Alpa can obviously afford it.

Carl Spackler 06-16-2012 07:58 AM
Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 1213286)
Boomer for the win. I didn't realize the negotiators are a bunch of line pilots. Ayfkm? Why aren't we hiring a bunch of high powered, professional negotiators? Alpa can obviously afford it.
Because line pilots (who've taken negotiations seminars) have the proven history of outsmarting management lawyers every time. Why would you want to change that success model? :rolleyes:

Carl

contrails 06-16-2012 08:10 AM
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1213295)
Because line pilots (who've taken negotiations seminars) have the proven history of outsmarting management lawyers every time. Why would you want to change that success model? :rolleyes:

Carl
Here's the real irony in my eyes.

Outsourcing the negotiating committee itself would probably result in less flying outsourced.

In-house negotiating committee? More outsourced flying.

What the . . . :confused:

Boomer 06-16-2012 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1213278)
  • Delta wanted 82 seats at DCI, we held them to 76-seaters, and 70 more of them.
  • Delta lets us convert our iffy 15% profit sharing into a solid 4/8.5/3/3% COLA.
  • The Republic carve-out was actually read by the lawyers this time.
  • 300 furloughs are mitigated by 300 early-outs, probably.
  • This keeps us ahead of AA, UCon, and USAir.
  • It will only suck for three years.
  • We'll do better next time!
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1213284)
The only thing you missed is the part about the NMB saying they won't compare us to SWA, and they'll park us indefinitely if we don't accept management's first offer.
I just touched on the carrots. You brought the stick. :D


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:14 PM.
Page 2 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands