Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-13-2012, 08:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
He asked, I answered. I'm OK going on record on how I would have voted. What he will fail to realize is that, I respect the will of the pilots. I also support debate and disagreement to get to a decision. We vote, we move on. No one is slighted or an enemy for their position.
09-13-2012, 08:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
09-13-2012, 08:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: New to mother D
Posts: 123
Slow vs. ACL = interesting times on APC!
Slow posting more frequently = interesting times ahead at Delta?
Call me a conspiracy theorist...
Slow posting more frequently = interesting times ahead at Delta?
Call me a conspiracy theorist...
09-13-2012, 08:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Slow,
I'm not trying to defend anyone but you ask such a loaded question that, in my mind, is unanswerable with the information the line pilot was provided. The answer to it would have to involve what was briefed to the MEC from many different sources that were not available to the line pilot. Alot of which was probably covered by non-disclosure agreements.....
Denny
09-13-2012, 09:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
I'll answer it.
I would have voted "no." It did not meet the direction of the pilots, and in many cases the direction of the reps.
Separating the process and the results was something I tried very hard to do. The MEC started their regular meeting eight hrs after the TA was reached. Given where the pay and other items were, it would have been prudent to have them agree on where the package was prior to TAing it.
Using Tim's words, of not sacrificing the product for a quick result always came to mind while deliberating how I would vote. I saw the product as a lacking because of the speed. (Many items not addressed and the top item, as admitted at all levels of the MEC fell 35% short on the amendable date. It was not one item or two, it was the whole product. It was our first major, non consolidation section 6 after CH11. We needed to do more than pay hit and run ball.
DAL has a business plan, is on track for another stellar year, with a bright future even in the face of the industry and macro economic world. What we got would have, after much deliberation, not been sufficient to meet the direction of the pilots, even after time valuing it for speed.
Honestly, if I was on the MEC, I would have made for certain that specific monetary levels would have to have been hit for the NC to TA the agreement. What the MEC voted on, would not have been possible if more specific direction was given. That is one of the root issue.
One thing that you may not see is that most pilots voted, yes, not because they liked the agreement, but because they did not feel that the NC could go back in their current form after making the statements they did.
I would have voted "no." It did not meet the direction of the pilots, and in many cases the direction of the reps.
Separating the process and the results was something I tried very hard to do. The MEC started their regular meeting eight hrs after the TA was reached. Given where the pay and other items were, it would have been prudent to have them agree on where the package was prior to TAing it.
Using Tim's words, of not sacrificing the product for a quick result always came to mind while deliberating how I would vote. I saw the product as a lacking because of the speed. (Many items not addressed and the top item, as admitted at all levels of the MEC fell 35% short on the amendable date. It was not one item or two, it was the whole product. It was our first major, non consolidation section 6 after CH11. We needed to do more than pay hit and run ball.
DAL has a business plan, is on track for another stellar year, with a bright future even in the face of the industry and macro economic world. What we got would have, after much deliberation, not been sufficient to meet the direction of the pilots, even after time valuing it for speed.
Honestly, if I was on the MEC, I would have made for certain that specific monetary levels would have to have been hit for the NC to TA the agreement. What the MEC voted on, would not have been possible if more specific direction was given. That is one of the root issue.
One thing that you may not see is that most pilots voted, yes, not because they liked the agreement, but because they did not feel that the NC could go back in their current form after making the statements they did.
Lets learn from the past and move forward. No point in looking in the rearview mirror except for learning from the past and informing future decisions.
In the end, apart from the pay bump - which is very welcome - most of the newly added contract items have yet to kick in and many won't until the middle of next year.
Should we hire this year, it will be based off of positive economic indicators, hardly something effected by our TA...
Cheers
George
09-13-2012, 09:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
Posts: 397
Speaking of TA's, and voting, and being disappointed with the process. You all better get off your a$$es and contact your reps about the upcoming FTDT LOA negotiations. After speaking to my rep, it is clear that the MEC believes that the input they received over a year go through the contract survey is sufficient to guide their negotiations on any contractual changes sought by the company regarding FTDT. It is also clear that the MEC has no intention of allowing a membership vote on the FTDT LOA.
CALL YOUR REPS AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS LOA!!!
This could have huge consequences for our pilot group and given their history, whose side do you think the MEC will take? Ours or managements.....
CALL YOUR REPS AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS LOA!!!
This could have huge consequences for our pilot group and given their history, whose side do you think the MEC will take? Ours or managements.....
09-13-2012, 09:09 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Speaking of TA's, and voting, and being disappointed with the process. You all better get off your a$$es and contact your reps about the upcoming FTDT LOA negotiations. After speaking to my rep, it is clear that the MEC believes that the input they received over a year go through the contract survey is sufficient to guide their negotiations on any contractual changes sought by the company regarding FTDT. It is also clear that the MEC has no intention of allowing a membership vote on the FTDT LOA.
CALL YOUR REPS AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS LOA!!!
This could have huge consequences for our pilot group and given their history, whose side do you think the MEC will take? Ours or managements.....
CALL YOUR REPS AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS LOA!!!
This could have huge consequences for our pilot group and given their history, whose side do you think the MEC will take? Ours or managements.....
That's divisive.
I talked to one of my reps who is not running again and he said two things. 1) If he was running again and would be in office he would push for MEMRAT and 2) that it will not be done before he gets out off office.
I agree, it needs to go to MEMRAT
09-13-2012, 09:10 AM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
I find it hard to believe that slowplay is using a rumor, the merest vague unsupported rumor, to attack the "no" vote as if the existence of a rumor is a defacto done deal and therefore proves his point.
Folks who voted "no" would LOVE to be proven wrong-- love it!-- to be shown the company WAS in fact 100% trustable with our family's future without pushing for stronger accountability and checks and balances. But just because a rumor exists, or even if there was an official announcement for that matter, does not prove they were wrong. Not until actual things have come to pass and moved into history will you be able to say that the company bargained in good faith, were trustable to not take unfair advantage, etc.
Not until 717s are here and NOT 99% replacement jets with sufficient time for the company to staff them and then move existing jets out of the fleet, can you say "See, the 717s were not replacement jets".
Not until profit sharing is declared and you do the calculations on what was lost due to the % giveaway, and look at the accounting books to see what Delta wrote off to ensure we were below any important payout triggers, and it turns out to be significantly less than the pay raise, can you say, "See, that all worked out well for us."
Not until the 90s and 717s and 900s are here, and DCI has been given their shiny new 100 seaters configured with 76 seats, and they've all been placed on routes and network settled out, can you then look at block hour results and say, "see, that wasn't a trick, it worked as advertised", and THEN look at the # of pilots and say the more critical, "See, the disconnect we put in of measuring block hours instead of aircraft hasn't hurt and has resulted in X # of more pilot jobs--look at all the folks we hired!"
Until all that happens, then it's just absolutely silly for you to point to a rumor of good things in the future and intimate, "you were wrong I was right".
Folks who voted "no" would LOVE to be proven wrong-- love it!-- to be shown the company WAS in fact 100% trustable with our family's future without pushing for stronger accountability and checks and balances. But just because a rumor exists, or even if there was an official announcement for that matter, does not prove they were wrong. Not until actual things have come to pass and moved into history will you be able to say that the company bargained in good faith, were trustable to not take unfair advantage, etc.
Not until 717s are here and NOT 99% replacement jets with sufficient time for the company to staff them and then move existing jets out of the fleet, can you say "See, the 717s were not replacement jets".
Not until profit sharing is declared and you do the calculations on what was lost due to the % giveaway, and look at the accounting books to see what Delta wrote off to ensure we were below any important payout triggers, and it turns out to be significantly less than the pay raise, can you say, "See, that all worked out well for us."
Not until the 90s and 717s and 900s are here, and DCI has been given their shiny new 100 seaters configured with 76 seats, and they've all been placed on routes and network settled out, can you then look at block hour results and say, "see, that wasn't a trick, it worked as advertised", and THEN look at the # of pilots and say the more critical, "See, the disconnect we put in of measuring block hours instead of aircraft hasn't hurt and has resulted in X # of more pilot jobs--look at all the folks we hired!"
Until all that happens, then it's just absolutely silly for you to point to a rumor of good things in the future and intimate, "you were wrong I was right".
09-13-2012, 09:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
+717 (sorry, I'm channeling you know who ;-)
Lets learn from the past and move forward. No point in looking in the rearview mirror except for learning from the past and informing future decisions.
In the end, apart from the pay bump - which is very welcome - most of the newly added contract items have yet to kick in and many won't until the middle of next year.
Should we hire this year, it will be based off of positive economic indicators, hardly something effected by our TA...
Cheers
George
Lets learn from the past and move forward. No point in looking in the rearview mirror except for learning from the past and informing future decisions.
In the end, apart from the pay bump - which is very welcome - most of the newly added contract items have yet to kick in and many won't until the middle of next year.
Should we hire this year, it will be based off of positive economic indicators, hardly something effected by our TA...
Cheers
George
Well George, let me ask you this. Taking the economy out of the picture, do you think we would have to hire with 717's coming on board or not?
Ah.......my bad RTFQ. I see where you said "this year." Never mind......
Denny
Last edited by Denny Crane; 09-13-2012 at 09:13 AM. Reason: added text
09-13-2012, 09:13 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Slow,
I'm not trying to defend anyone but you ask such a loaded question that, in my mind, is unanswerable with the information the line pilot was provided. The answer to it would have to involve what was briefed to the MEC from many different sources that were not available to the line pilot. Alot of which was probably covered by non-disclosure agreements.....
Denny
I'm not trying to defend anyone but you ask such a loaded question that, in my mind, is unanswerable with the information the line pilot was provided. The answer to it would have to involve what was briefed to the MEC from many different sources that were not available to the line pilot. Alot of which was probably covered by non-disclosure agreements.....
Denny
Quite true. We had a divided vote on the MEC, which on an issue like this makes me realize that whatever evidence etc, that they were presented was not 100% convincing.
Either way, its moot. We had 94% of the pilots vote! (Awesome) and it passed by a decent margin. (good no matter how you voted) We now move on and attack the next merger/acquisition/LOA or opportunity, looking for items to improve in the PWA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
