Pay a year behind dal!!!
11-23-2012, 08:20 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 767-400
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by flybynuts
Delta gave scope the day the contract was signed. We told mgmt to wait a year before. Mgmt said it is worth 8.5 so we start off 8.5 behind since we didn't give them scope at day one.
Take it for what it is worth. I think regardless, we should be leading in ALL areas so this is a concession.
Take it for what it is worth. I think regardless, we should be leading in ALL areas so this is a concession.
1. Ratio of 50 seat RJs are parked.
2. Ratio of 717s are delivered. (Over 1 year after DOS)
3. Total ASM, Aircraft and seats at DCI decrease and mainline block hours (not ASMs major difference) increase.
11-23-2012, 09:20 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 880
Big guns,
I'm not saying you, Delta, can take more RJs. I am saying that when you ratified your contract, the company could start taking advantage of the Scope clause. United TA makes the company wait a year. The company then said no equal Delta rates until then. That is why we are -8.5% for year one.
I'm not saying you, Delta, can take more RJs. I am saying that when you ratified your contract, the company could start taking advantage of the Scope clause. United TA makes the company wait a year. The company then said no equal Delta rates until then. That is why we are -8.5% for year one.
11-23-2012, 09:44 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Unqalified
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Sunvox
Fact is when you add up base pay, profit sharing potential, B Fund, Add Pay, and work rules we will be paid more than Delta beginning in 2014, but I guess that discussion is too intense for someone focused on trite short sound bites meant to spread negativity on the internet. Let's say you and I start a new thread and go "head to head" on specific issues one at a time 'cuz I'm thinking you are an easy kill.
Interesting that you should champion the "set the voters' expectation" approach to selling this industry lagging agreement. Picking and choosing metrics to substantiate a position for the sake of garnering support. Seems some in the flock seem to have strayed from the definition, or simply chosen to redefine, "industry leading"...
I've been on both sides (CAL and UAL) of the fence as this scenario has unraveled; having worked under both contracts, this agreement clearly doesn't meet the requirement of "industry leading", no matter how you choose to measure.
We'll get what we "deserve"...whether we choose to ask for it or not.
Cheers,
Horhay
11-23-2012, 10:13 AM
#14
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by flybynuts
Big guns,
I'm not saying you, Delta, can take more RJs. I am saying that when you ratified your contract, the company could start taking advantage of the Scope clause. United TA makes the company wait a year. The company then said no equal Delta rates until then. That is why we are -8.5% for year one.
I'm not saying you, Delta, can take more RJs. I am saying that when you ratified your contract, the company could start taking advantage of the Scope clause. United TA makes the company wait a year. The company then said no equal Delta rates until then. That is why we are -8.5% for year one.
11-23-2012, 02:13 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
They cant take advantage of the scope clause until the first of the 717s are delivered.... that is the trigger.
Btw...I think Anderson was brilliant by setting the bar on all contracts while he had the chance to with United and AA in negotiating spots.
11-23-2012, 06:28 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Horhay
Yikes...did I enter a UAL Mgmt TA justification 101 forum?
Interesting that you should champion the "set the voters' expectation" approach to selling this industry lagging agreement. Picking and choosing metrics to substantiate a position for the sake of garnering support. Seems some in the flock seem to have strayed from the definition, or simply chosen to redefine, "industry leading"...
I've been on both sides (CAL and UAL) of the fence as this scenario has unraveled; having worked under both contracts, this agreement clearly doesn't meet the requirement of "industry leading", no matter how you choose to measure.
We'll get what we "deserve"...whether we choose to ask for it or not.
Cheers,
Horhay
Interesting that you should champion the "set the voters' expectation" approach to selling this industry lagging agreement. Picking and choosing metrics to substantiate a position for the sake of garnering support. Seems some in the flock seem to have strayed from the definition, or simply chosen to redefine, "industry leading"...
I've been on both sides (CAL and UAL) of the fence as this scenario has unraveled; having worked under both contracts, this agreement clearly doesn't meet the requirement of "industry leading", no matter how you choose to measure.
We'll get what we "deserve"...whether we choose to ask for it or not.
Cheers,
Horhay
11-24-2012, 12:20 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Originally Posted by Sunvox
Ahh I see you are like everyone else . . . so your argument is you have the facts and I don't and you'd like me to believe I'm an idiot because you say so. Try picking a topic so we can debate the point instead of throwing out some trite generalization of how I'm a management stooge which I'm not 'cuz I'm a gazillionaire and don't need to work (if your're really a UAL/CAL pilot you can look up my schedule Joe Peck - IADFO 756 I only work 50 hours) so I don't give a "Rat's Ass" what y'all vote ultimately, but I'm Magna Cum Laude from Dartmouth and I have actually read this contract and found it to be ahead of every contract in history. So pick you topic to debate and add value to the conversation or shut up.
11-24-2012, 12:54 PM
#19
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: 2172
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Sunvox
Ahh I see you are like everyone else . . . so your argument is you have the facts and I don't and you'd like me to believe I'm an idiot because you say so. Try picking a topic so we can debate the point instead of throwing out some trite generalization of how I'm a management stooge which I'm not 'cuz I'm a gazillionaire and don't need to work (if your're really a UAL/CAL pilot you can look up my schedule Joe Peck - IADFO 756 I only work 50 hours) so I don't give a "Rat's Ass" what y'all vote ultimately, but I'm Magna Cum Laude from Dartmouth and I have actually read this contract and found it to be ahead of every contract in history. So pick you topic to debate and add value to the conversation or shut up.
11-24-2012, 01:03 PM
#20
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Pilot
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by sunvox
ahh i see you are like everyone else . . . So your argument is you have the facts and i don't and you'd like me to believe i'm an idiot because you say so. Try picking a topic so we can debate the point instead of throwing out some trite generalization of how i'm a management stooge which i'm not 'cuz i'm a gazillionaire and don't need to work (if your're really a ual/cal pilot you can look up my schedule joe peck - iadfo 756 i only work 50 hours) so i don't give a "rat's ass" what y'all vote ultimately, but i'm magna cum laude from dartmouth and i have actually read this contract and found it to be ahead of every contract in history. So pick you topic to debate and add value to the conversation or shut up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
