How the AIP Happened
12-04-2022, 04:03 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 999
So that I don't read too much into this... The opposite(Which is what you said) would be, " A rep said we will not get parked if this deal is rejected"
Who said that and/or where is it posted?
I am reading what you wrote literally...not trying to pick nits but as they say ..."words matter"
12-04-2022, 04:03 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,535
So that I don't read too much into this... The opposite(Which is what you said) would be, " A rep said we will not get parked if this deal is rejected"
Who said that and/or where is it posted?
I am reading what you wrote literally...not trying to pick nits but as they say ..."words matter"
So that I don't read too much into this... The opposite(Which is what you said) would be, " A rep said we will not get parked if this deal is rejected"
Who said that and/or where is it posted?
I am reading what you wrote literally...not trying to pick nits but as they say ..."words matter"
He’s talking about me. I said the mediator never said we would be parked. She said there would be a status conference late Jan to see where everyone was at if we said no to this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12-04-2022, 04:14 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,345
Why even vote? The tone of the OP seems to be, "line pilots don't understand the process and can't be trusted with this decision."
This process should be completely transparent. The idea that someone on the negotiating committee feels needs to leak info like this in order to manipulate public opinion really doesn't build unity. If the mediator said they will park us, then why can't they say that publically? If this deal is so great and the consequences of voting no are so dire, why isn't management saying it instead of fellow pilots? If our vote on this TA is as critical as the OP says it is, then maybe ALPA should have done a better job finding out what the pilot group actually wanted AND also made sure we had realistic expectations.
Personally, I think they gave us plenty of opportunities for us to tell them what we want in a contract, but I think they failed to give us much detail on what the contract was looking like. The AIP wording didn't help either. I saw a lot of vague language that will hopefully get fixed in the actual TA. The point is, we are all grown-ups and can read the TA and vote for ourselves. Using scare tactics to get us to vote yes is insulting.
This process should be completely transparent. The idea that someone on the negotiating committee feels needs to leak info like this in order to manipulate public opinion really doesn't build unity. If the mediator said they will park us, then why can't they say that publically? If this deal is so great and the consequences of voting no are so dire, why isn't management saying it instead of fellow pilots? If our vote on this TA is as critical as the OP says it is, then maybe ALPA should have done a better job finding out what the pilot group actually wanted AND also made sure we had realistic expectations.
Personally, I think they gave us plenty of opportunities for us to tell them what we want in a contract, but I think they failed to give us much detail on what the contract was looking like. The AIP wording didn't help either. I saw a lot of vague language that will hopefully get fixed in the actual TA. The point is, we are all grown-ups and can read the TA and vote for ourselves. Using scare tactics to get us to vote yes is insulting.
12-04-2022, 06:20 PM
#54
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 13
For those that say my original post is here-say and BS, read this, as copied from the thread of this exact topic Widget Pilots. Not my words. You likely won’t hear anything official from union on this subject. They can’t/won’t. But here you go… get it corroborated by anyone that knows what actually happened:
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
12-04-2022, 06:31 PM
#55
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
For those that say my original post is here-say and BS, read this, as copied from the thread of this exact topic Widget Pilots. Not my words. You likely won’t hear anything official from union on this subject. They can’t/won’t. But here you go… get it corroborated by anyone that knows what actually happened:
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
In 55-year-old man speak, Catherine Zeta-Jones offered to take Micheal Douglas up to her room. It was 11:30. He knew damn well this was as good as things were going to get.
When he got throat cancer ... he was kinda proud of it and told everyone how he got it.
----
I will have no shame setting the bar for United and American. If they bump us up another 2% or 3% I'll buy them a beverage.
12-04-2022, 06:40 PM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 717B
Posts: 65
RLA
For those that say my original post is here-say and BS, read this, as copied from the thread of this exact topic Widget Pilots. Not my words. You likely won’t hear anything official from union on this subject. They can’t/won’t. But here you go… get it corroborated by anyone that knows what actually happened:
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
Last edited by Wmuav8r; 12-04-2022 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Spelling
12-04-2022, 06:58 PM
#57
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 29
Dr. Martin Luthur King would have gotten precisely dick done if he had not been arrested 26 times, got beat in the head, his house blown up with his wife & kids inside. He had to break the law to illustrate the injustice of the law.
New hire participation rate in ALPA PAC is less than 25%.
Nobody has the sense that we are there. Sure we might be happy to send our MEC Chair to jail. Will we get him out?
IMHO we are responsible.
12-04-2022, 07:36 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,237
What you wrote can easily be interpreted/construed as what I ASKED in my question for clarification.
You can be the final arbiter of truth....reread your post and see if any of this makes sense. If ir doesn't, disregard my question for clarification.
Cheers
Edit...seems norcal had a whole lot more to provide than what Tunes was able/willing to provide...even after he put on his politicians suit. That is , if you even read these boards.
Last edited by Buck Rogers; 12-04-2022 at 07:53 PM.
12-04-2022, 08:07 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Position: ATL 7ER A
Posts: 308
Mooner:
Have you read the posts from lewbronski on this board? Please do. He is more well versed on this but - if we get parked but are bargaining in good faith (we are) then our recourse is the courts. They will not be friendly to an NMB that parks us when we are bargaining in good faith. Look it up. Don’t be forced into voting yes because you are uninformed and afraid. Insert RF-4 image here.
Have you read the posts from lewbronski on this board? Please do. He is more well versed on this but - if we get parked but are bargaining in good faith (we are) then our recourse is the courts. They will not be friendly to an NMB that parks us when we are bargaining in good faith. Look it up. Don’t be forced into voting yes because you are uninformed and afraid. Insert RF-4 image here.
12-04-2022, 08:32 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,174
For those that say my original post is here-say and BS, read this, as copied from the thread of this exact topic Widget Pilots. Not my words. You likely won’t hear anything official from union on this subject. They can’t/won’t. But here you go… get it corroborated by anyone that knows what actually happened:
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
—-
This was shared with me, with the permission of Art Luby, who is our lead attorney working with the Negotiating Committee. It's a synopsis of an email he sent to the entire MEC describing the current situation with the mediator and the NMB:
• Mediator Jane Allen, operating our case, was being directly overseen by Linda Puchala, Chairman of the NMB, and her views directly reflect hers and the other members of the board who were regularly informed of the progress of our case.
• When informed of Bastian’s comments on the Today Show, Mediator Allen made it clear that these statements were inappropriate and demanded increased progress by the Company in the sessions that followed. The only reason she did not cancel negotiations in response to Bastian’s remarks is that they, correctly, surmised that it would not be in our best interest so, instead, she applied pressure to the Company. In fact, we closed a number of long-pending issues, including vacation, in those sessions.
• The NMB’s handling of our case was no different than I’ve experienced in every pilot negotiation I’ve been involved in, including four UPS negotiations. The NMB operates within a subjective “zone of reasonableness” and evaluates the parties’ positions based on that window. This concept is often disputed by both sides, but it nonetheless is the manner in which the process occurs. At this point, from the perspective of the NMB, they pushed the Company into agreeing to, what it considers, is the richest pilot contract ever negotiated worth a cumulative $6.5B over current book ($7.2B including the retro pay), inclusive of unprecedented improvements in QOL and Scope. It was not willing to push the Company further, particularly regarding retirement improvements that don’t exist among Delta’s competitors and, in fact, have not even been sought by the pilots at those carriers. To put it into their construct, they viewed these aspects of our demands as outside their perceived “zone of reasonableness.”
• Nevertheless, the Negotiating Committee pursued all of the MEC’s direction until we determined, based on our judgment of the responses of the Company’s representatives and the mediator, that we had successfully reached Delta’s bottom line. This wasn’t even a proposal, but a “supposal,” which means that Mediator Allen essentially informed us that she believed the Company exceeded her expectations of reasonableness and that if the MEC did not work within this supposal, everything negotiated at that point was to be considered non-binding; the Company’s offer would evaporate and would have to be re-negotiated in the future.
• If this “supposal” was not the basis for agreement and rejected, there would be no further energy placed into scheduling negotiation sessions until a “status conference (not negotiations)” that would probably take place in late January. Mediator Allen also explicitly stated that the NMB was not going to make a proffer of arbitration or release, which is wholly within the NMB’s discretion, and no Court has ever overruled the agency on such a matter.
• Even if the NMB does entertain a proffer and release at some point in the future, there’s a significant possibility that we will be funneled into the PEB process, and you can judge for yourself how well that has worked for the rail unions. I consider the RLA to be a flawed statute, however, we have to work within the law as it exists. Regardless, I cannot say that the NMB applied the RLA any differently to our dispute that any other dispute, or that Mediator Allen handled this negotiation any differently than any other mediator I’ve observed or dealt with.
I trust the collective wisdom of the pilot group to decide if this AIP, that will become a TA, is good enough.
The question before the 17 voting reps is no longer “is it good enough?”
Their only question is “should the pilots decide?”
Publish all the final language and let the 15k of us decide. I keep seeing 9-8 tossed around. This is a clear 17-0.
Recall any knucklehead that votes to deny us MEMRAT.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
