|
Originally Posted by ripn6
(Post 1213350)
It is very simple. This TA will breathe life into a dying DCI model. It may reduce the total number of RJ's now, but DALPA has proved that a hard cap limit is for sale. We will be back at the table in only 2 1/2 years, and the company will be looking for more large RJ's. I'm okay with the pay. Scope was my number one concern going into this negotiation.
I've heard your argument that this TA tightens scope, and understand what your saying, so you don't need to say it again. HARD CAP today= next round's notepads in small letters with the new, large amount that it is being replaced by stated as "HARD CAP." |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1213343)
You are way off. Management is reducing outsourcing overall, and tightening their own international scope with this TA. They may have wanted more 76 seaters, but with it they have to yield a ratio that downsizes DCI. The 88 717s will swoop in and take back regional flights that you are currently doing between larger city pairs. The profit sharing decrease might take place in 2014, not next year, and by 2015 we would be negotiating again. If the analysts are right and DL is wildly profitable, the profit sharing cutback may not happen at all, actually increasing to 20% from 15%. Will there be 300 furloughs? No one ever said that, but you. The 717s, that have to come or no additional CR9s, could add 1000 jobs, and the VP of flt Ops said hiring this Fall (you don't trust him....). DL would be way ahead if AA, US, and UA, who really haven't helped anyone in pattern bargaining. And 20% raise in 2 1/2 years is great. How has your own pay progressed? It's a great deal with better scope overall, less outsourcing, 717s, good pay. You're wrong.
Also, my pay has not progressed since 2003. I don't think you need to compare the TA pay rates to a regional FO's, even if we work for the same holdings company. Other than that, I agree with your conclusions - assuming all your "coulds, mights, and ifs" come true. Bill, I know you have read this TA very carefully. However, I believe you are reading between the lines and finding goodwill from management. Delta and ALPA have tought me that a contract is not about coulds, mights, and ifs. Agree to disagree. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1213276)
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.
While our respective unions handed over much greater concessions on our side for a massive NET loss. 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. 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 I already proved how the TA provides for an additional 1,000 jobs, so I am not apologizing for telling the truth. 88 B-717's replacing 50 seaters is a net gain of 1,000 jobs for Delta pilots. This TA accelerates the loss of capacity in DCI and places that capacity back at mainline. |
Ah nevermind. I'm just in an argumentive mood......
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1213367)
I'm not buying the "leading industry pay rate" thing either. But the raises equate to more money in my pocket vs the profit sharing. We are looking at a lot more money in our pockets with the rates vs the profit sharing.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1213370)
The key is that the profit sharing was reduced to fund pay rate increases which already undershot survey results by a significant margin.
|
The 300 number is the number of projected jobs lost to the ALV plus 15 for reserves and the ALV going to 84 some months. There were however several other areas where we gained jobs such as counting vacation ect.. into when a reserve is full and basing full on the reserve guarantee instead of ALV. The net job loss with work rules will be around 175 jobs. I don't believe we needed to give those jobs up but its not 300 as some have posted. Posting that there will be 300 furloughs as a result of the TA is quite simply a lie and the poster knows that.
|
Look at the weekly transcripts from management. Have you ever seen management try to sell something so badly? I think they are selling this harder than alpa.
|
Originally Posted by ripn6
(Post 1213350)
It is very simple. This TA will breathe life into a dying DCI model. It may reduce the total number of RJ's now, but DALPA has proved that a hard cap limit is for sale. We will be back at the table in only 2 1/2 years, and the company will be looking for more large RJ's. I'm okay with the pay. Scope was my number one concern going into this negotiation.
I've heard your argument that this TA tightens scope, and understand what your saying, so you don't need to say it again. What he said. |
Originally Posted by ripn6
(Post 1213350)
It is very simple. This TA will breathe life into a dying DCI model. It may reduce the total number of RJ's now, but DALPA has proved that a hard cap limit is for sale. We will be back at the table in only 2 1/2 years, and the company will be looking for more large RJ's. I'm okay with the pay. Scope was my number one concern going into this negotiation.
I've heard your argument that this TA tightens scope, and understand what your saying, so you don't need to say it again. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands