Hawaii50

It may be ugly but do we care if it's cost neutral to the company? If they're taking it from somewhere else and putting it in our pocket, I'm fine with that.

vprMatrix

This is a point I have made before, so much of the hidden cost of outsourcing large RJs cannot be accounted for but is coming directly from Delta's bottom line. ALPA (as of the last few months) claims the Delta has shown them the internal numbers that show mainline can't fly CRJ-900s profitably but given how they like to "hold these numbers close to their chest" I have to wonder if the numbers Delta "shared" with DALPA were not spun just a little.

In all honesty ALPA should not be relying on management's numbers.

Carl Spackler

You seem to think that when I said you lied, it was name calling. It wasn't. It was a statement of fact. And no amount of name calling (above being just your latest example) will deflect from the fact that you lied. Our LEC reps did NOT "misread" or "mishear" as you stated they did. They looked at the same costing data you did and reached the conclusion that this is a cost neutral TA to Delta Air Lines. Almost as if there were psychic, they then warned us that the MEC (and its unelected bureaucrats like you) are too heavily invested in this TA to be able to describe it objectively. You continue to prove them right.

Again, your argument is not with me, it's with the reps. And I am very thankful for mine right now. Without their very courageous votes even in the face of the smear campaign that has already begun against them, we'd be on our way to a sure bet steamrolling. At least now, we have a small chance.

Carl

slowplay

One of the advantages of working for a large union is that your E&FA department gets to look at 37 different airlines and their internal numbers. While they are bound by confidentiality agreements they can quickly tell which carriers are out of the norm. ALPA also has copies of all the DCI (and many other regionals)ASA agreements and can match the numbers from the agreements with data provided by management. Lastly, most of the regionals are publicly traded companies (Trans States excepted) and have SEC reporting requirements. Those are yet another crosscheck.

In all honesty ALPA doesn't rely just on management's numbers.

slowplay

Keyboard Kommando Karl,

Let's go back...again....and see if you can stay on topic.

The topic was costing. Your post said I lied in my response to a poster on costing...show me where I lied by post number, please.

Please, once again, show me where I talked about "cost neutral" in a lying manner. Post number, please.

Proof, please.

Here's a hint...you're wrong *yet again*

and you said it's always personal....funny stuff.

Carl Spackler

I'm a bad example for you to use, because I have almost no DC and will not til around 2015 if memory serves. We did that at NWA so junior guys would have their retirements boosted by money from senior guys that I theoretically don't need as much since I have a frozen DB retirement.

But my point about this TA being cost neutral is that if you're going to crow about these pay raises (which are really little more than a COLA), you MUST look in the rest of the contract where that is being "funded." Loss of profit sharing, concessions on work rules to name a few. That's only fair to point out. Especially in the light that this TA is indeed cost neutral to Delta. We waited 10+ years and gave DALPA what they pleaded for...the opportunity to show us what they could do in the first Section 6 in a decade. DALPA was further bolstered by negotiating during a time of our airline's record profits. What did they bring us? A cost neutral TA.

That's a fact. Everyone must obviously use their own judgment on how to vote, but you're voting on a cost neutral TA.

Carl

Boomer

C2K Strike Committee Guy: "We'll need a 30% raise and no jets over 50 seats at DCI"

Delta: "What are you willing to give up for it?"

Strike Committee Guy: "Logbook"

scambo1

Now that right there is funny! I don't care who you are.

Coming from Alfa...

slowplay

You have way more DC now than you would have had pre-merger due to the 3% increases (1% each in 2010/11/12) and you're also getting residual contributions from targeting spillover due to those increased contributions. Targeting sunsets in December 2013. You'll be getting 15% (if the TA passes) like the rest of us at that point. Did you mention the DB funding that the senior guys are getting that the targeted guys aren't sharing in? Were you part of Tanksley, Carl?

But you're right, you are a poor example.

1234

Look, I too would love to be paid much more, I really think that each day of training should be 5:15 (since we are on duty it should be an avg duty day), vacation should be at least 5!5 (a days worth of work), etc but to say that this raise is cola to me is mind boggling. It is a three year deal and it would be a ~19% raise. That is more than cola. What if we did the deal of 6.5 Jan 1, 2013, 6.5% 2014 and 6.5% 2015. It would be about the same % but is that just cola? Guys are fixated on the last two years and quite frankly, I would much rather have a larger bump now than equal over the term.
One more question: lets say that we vote this TA down and the company does in fact decide to do the overhauls on the 50 seaters. Then the company comes back to us with the same deal. It is no longer cost neutral to the company, is it now a good deal since it cost the company money?

Believe me, I really feel that we are being slighted by the fact that we get to realize the benefit of the re-fleeting of the regionals and yet the company is not throwing in a few more $$ to our group for successfully completing a merger without any glitches from flight ops side (as it relates to passengers) and taking major setbacks to get the company out of bk and become profitable again. It really does not sit well that we aren't given at least a little token amount since every other group is. Why should our gains have to only come from the benefits of getting out of 50 seat rj leases. What are the other labor and office groups giving up in order to get their raises? All I am saying is that I don't necessarily think that just because it is cost neutral, that is the reason to vote it down.

Either the TA meets your minimum threshold or it doesn't (as it pertains to wages and work rules).

This is just my thoughts and I am no where near coming to a decision as to how I will vote. I do know that I will for sure vote no, no matter what, if the company/union does not inform us that pilots are not coming with the 717's (sorry for the numerous use of negatives in the sentence for all you grammerians).