Details on Delta TA

Subscribe
40  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  60  100  150  550 
Page 50 of 1030
Go to
Quote: His post says that I thought the MEC had a low intellect.
I said nothing of the kind.

It's an attempt to personalize the discussion and avoid substantive debate.
It's fine. I'm not offended. I just think it wastes time and bandwidth.
Sometimes it's amusing but there seems a little too much of it on this board lately.
Yo, erdude32, I'm not a rep.

Hmm, looks like I became rather infamous while out doing yard work today!

Check, it ain't personal, sorry you took it that way. I have no idea if the last TA did or did not meet the MEC's stated minimum (I wasn't there, were you?). The NC brought back a comprehensive agreement that they felt was the best they could negotiate and after 7 days of detailed and contentious discussion the MEC voted 14-5 in favor of sending it out to the pilot group.

How members (or other pilots who weren't there) have a theory that 14 (16 including the MEM reps), were "outmaneuvered" with a concerted plot, I just can't get behind that without proof. I've yet to read or hear anything other than conspiracy theories. No coherent set of facts to justify how 16 pilots were tricked/outplayed/whatever.... Until that can be clearly demonstrated, I stand by what I said.
Reply
Quote: Yo, erdude32, I'm not a rep.

Hmm, looks like I became rather infamous while out doing yard work today!

Check, it ain't personal, sorry you took it that way. I have no idea if the last TA did or did not meet the MEC's stated minimum (I wasn't there, were you?). The NC brought back a comprehensive agreement that they felt was the best they could negotiate and after 7 days of detailed and contentious discussion the MEC voted 14-5 in favor of sending it out to the pilot group.

How members (or other pilots who weren't there) have a theory that 14 (16 including the MEM reps), were "outmaneuvered" with a concerted plot, I just can't get behind that without proof. I've yet to read or hear anything other than conspiracy theories. No coherent set of facts to justify how 16 pilots were tricked/outplayed/whatever.... Until that can be clearly demonstrated, I stand by what I said.
Shiz,

I don't know if out maneuvered would be the correct wording, but if I remember my history correctly, the reason it took 7 days was because it wasn't passing on it's own merit so they had some serious discussion about what if we don't pass it. Basically they beat up on the reps long enough until they said ok we get it...it's the best you think we can do although it didn't meet our parameters. This was exactly how it was explained to me from my rep.

I really wish they would bring back the old pro and con papers. Believe it our not we do have a good many pilots that just vote the way their reps say they should vote. Call it apathy or just too trusting.
Reply
You can theorize that was the reason, more time to "beat up on the reps", but but that doesn't provide any evidence.

Per the Delta MEC Policy Manual, the reps are required to have any TA for at least seven days unless the MEC votes to waive that provision (they didn't). Also, discussion is amongst the reps, no one else has speaking rights unless it is to answer a reps questions. The Chairman functions as a moderator, keeping a speakers list, and to have SME's available to the reps to answer detailed inquiries or to explain a provision when there are questions. It is the Reps, not the admin who control the process once an agreement is in front of them. I still can't find the part where 16 (the MEM reps were supposedly given speaking rights even though they had technically lost their LEC the month prior, but they had given direction and redirection for the entire process and had a pretty legit claim to being involved in the deliberations even in their vote didn't count according to the by-laws) of our peer elected representative were fooled so badly or beat up on so hard that they "fell in line" so willingly. Please show me some concrete evidence that somehow 5 out of the 14 voting reps (or two others) didn't fall for the ruse. I don't believe that our peers are that gullible or foolish. Those reps made a very difficult call, and the pilot group agreed with it nearly 2:1.

I don't think that thousands of supposedly intelligent pilots and their deeply involved representatives are fooled that easily, I guess others do believe that.
Reply
Quote: You can theorize that was the reason, more time to "beat up on the reps", but but that doesn't provide any evidence.

Per the Delta MEC Policy Manual, the reps are required to have any TA for at least seven days unless the MEC votes to waive that provision (they didn't). Also, discussion is amongst the reps, no one else has speaking rights unless it is to answer a reps questions. The Chairman functions as a moderator, keeping a speakers list, and to have SME's available to the reps to answer detailed inquiries or to explain a provision when there are questions. It is the Reps, not the admin who control the process once an agreement is in front of them. I still can't find the part where 16 (the MEM reps were supposedly given speaking rights even though they had technically lost their LEC the month prior, but they had given direction and redirection for the entire process and had a pretty legit claim to being involved in the deliberations even in their vote didn't count according to the by-laws) of our peer elected representative were fooled so badly or beat up on so hard that they "fell in line" so willingly. Please show me some concrete evidence that somehow 5 out of the 14 voting reps (or two others) didn't fall for the ruse. I don't believe that our peers are that gullible or foolish. Those reps made a very difficult call, and the pilot group agreed with it nearly 2:1.

I don't think that thousands of supposedly intelligent pilots and their deeply involved representatives are fooled that easily, I guess others do believe that.
I didn't theorize anything. I'm very involved with my rep and have always been. I had to go back to many people and apologize because the 4833 leaked and I said that there was no way that would be put in front of us. I called my rep and he said the same thing. Then he had to come back to me and explain that yes it was indeed true and that there was serious debate because the contract did not meet the goals of the pilots that elected him. I even had a very long discussion with HK the lead negotiator for us. I've known him since almost my first day at Delta, after an hour we just agreed to talk about our families.

You like to throw around statements like "so fooled" I never said that you did. What I did say is that the contract did not meet the requirements of the pilots via their reps, however the negotiators felt that this was the absolute best that they could get without a drawn out section 6 which could possibly cost us the 717's and the credit for letting them get rid of the RJ's.

I try not to get involved with these threads as there are rabid opinions on both sides. I'm done with this one. I will continue to contact my rep and I will vote accordingly, which may not be how he voted.
Reply
Quote: I didn't theorize anything. I'm very involved with my rep and have always been. I had to go back to many people and apologize because the 4833 leaked and I said that there was no way that would be put in front of us. I called my rep and he said the same thing. Then he had to come back to me and explain that yes it was indeed true and that there was serious debate because the contract did not meet the goals of the pilots that elected him. I even had a very long discussion with HK the lead negotiator for us. I've known him since almost my first day at Delta, after an hour we just agreed to talk about our families.

You like to throw around statements like "so fooled" I never said that you did. What I did say is that the contract did not meet the requirements of the pilots via their reps, however the negotiators felt that this was the absolute best that they could get without a drawn out section 6 which could possibly cost us the 717's and the credit for letting them get rid of the RJ's.

I try not to get involved with these threads as there are rabid opinions on both sides. I'm done with this one. I will continue to contact my rep and I will vote accordingly, which may not be how he voted.
Fair enough, I'm done too on the subject.

Needless to say this next round has a different industry/company environment and in a VERY beneficial way for our side of the table. Thank you for staying active, participating and engaging your reps; pilot particpation and the unity that comes from that engagement is the best way to hit our goals. It's the ones who have extracted themselves and/or that are fomenting disunity that reduce our leverage and ultimately lower our chances of success.
Reply
Quote: Are minimum acceptable pay increases minimums at all costs?
No. Of course not. It could depend on what else is in the agreement, if it's significant enough. But reaching a tentative agreement with pay increases FAR below the minimum, as indicated by the guidance from the reps and what the survey said, is not an acceptable way for our Negotiating Committee to do business on our behalf.
Reply
Quote: No. Of course not. It could depend on what else is in the agreement, if it's significant enough. But reaching a tentative agreement with pay increases FAR below the minimum, as indicated by the guidance from the reps and what the survey said, is not an acceptable way for our Negotiating Committee to do business on our behalf.
There is nothing in the C&BL or the Policy Manual that requires the contract survey to be the determining factor for a TA.

Your Reps are entrusted to set the direction and approve or send back any proposed TA. Vote carefully...
Reply
deleted due to subsequent understanding.
Reply
Quote: There is nothing in the C&BL or the Policy Manual that requires the contract survey to be the determining factor for a TA.
Ever heard of ethics, Shiz? Common sense? You know how in aviation sometimes just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's safe? Well, sometimes in life just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's smart or the right thing to do.

Quote: Your Reps are entrusted to set the direction and approve or send back any proposed TA. Vote carefully...
Yeah, well I don't trust my reps. I especially don't trust their judgement. I didn't vote for any of them.
Reply
Quote: Yeah, well I don't trust my reps. I especially don't trust their judgement. I didn't vote for any of them.
That speaks volumes, and it clears up all the questions about your motivation that I had in the previous post, which will be deleted if I get there before it is quoted.

Good luck in your quest. Be sure to sign your card, and let us all know when the vote will be.
Reply
40  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  60  100  150  550 
Page 50 of 1030
Go to