Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-24-2013, 01:19 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
09-24-2013, 01:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
This analysis you've posted is pretty interesting and seems to cover the options of this decision... but you massively mislead our downside by not extrapolating a legal contract clause into the future, "What if the company decided to take advantage of this wording, could they?".
Your straw man you set up to slay is "15 pax a day", as if that's all this is about on the downside, or COULD EVER BE--that's our choice, 15 pax. Come on, that's not the downside of this at all! It's the contract language POTENTIAL for 1500 pax a day of code shares if the door is inappropriately opened and protections to stop it are removed. You seriously can't be this unable to look towards potential adversity from the PILOTs perspective... I know you certainly can see the downside of the company's potential decisions, you present them to us non-stop.
You do this "set up a bogus strawman and argue against it" style of argument quite often alfa... I like your intellectual slant, but you NEVER PRESENT BOTH POTENTIAL SIDES! You are 20% of the reason I don't trust my union-- you rarely argue the non-company side and play devil's advocate, or start by taking the "pro-pilot cautious company disbelief until proven otherwise and still ensure protection against unanticipated intentional full exploitation of the wording by the company" position-- MY BARGAINING AGENT's obvious and fiduciary position! Every time I read your posts, and I've come to understand you are affiliated with my union somehow, I feel like I'm reading some company-propagandist whose intent is to talk me into whatever they are selling. Seriously every time I read you, I think "Well, that guy sounds quite smart... I sure wish he were working FOR me, instead of for the company, I wonder how they managed to buy him off, maybe they got his kids hostage?" Gosh how I wish you'd apply your mind and intellect to presenting the data from a "pilot's first if there is conflict" perspective, instead of a "company first, and pilot's will probably benefit from that" perspective.
Just my opinion, but you do spend a lot of time here presenting the ALPA case, so I thought you might like to hear a data point from a receptive listener on how your postings come through. No insult intended, truly, I read everything you post... I just never feel you have MY back in mind. Hope I'm wrong and just don't understand enough.
Your straw man you set up to slay is "15 pax a day", as if that's all this is about on the downside, or COULD EVER BE--that's our choice, 15 pax. Come on, that's not the downside of this at all! It's the contract language POTENTIAL for 1500 pax a day of code shares if the door is inappropriately opened and protections to stop it are removed. You seriously can't be this unable to look towards potential adversity from the PILOTs perspective... I know you certainly can see the downside of the company's potential decisions, you present them to us non-stop.
You do this "set up a bogus strawman and argue against it" style of argument quite often alfa... I like your intellectual slant, but you NEVER PRESENT BOTH POTENTIAL SIDES! You are 20% of the reason I don't trust my union-- you rarely argue the non-company side and play devil's advocate, or start by taking the "pro-pilot cautious company disbelief until proven otherwise and still ensure protection against unanticipated intentional full exploitation of the wording by the company" position-- MY BARGAINING AGENT's obvious and fiduciary position! Every time I read your posts, and I've come to understand you are affiliated with my union somehow, I feel like I'm reading some company-propagandist whose intent is to talk me into whatever they are selling. Seriously every time I read you, I think "Well, that guy sounds quite smart... I sure wish he were working FOR me, instead of for the company, I wonder how they managed to buy him off, maybe they got his kids hostage?" Gosh how I wish you'd apply your mind and intellect to presenting the data from a "pilot's first if there is conflict" perspective, instead of a "company first, and pilot's will probably benefit from that" perspective.
Just my opinion, but you do spend a lot of time here presenting the ALPA case, so I thought you might like to hear a data point from a receptive listener on how your postings come through. No insult intended, truly, I read everything you post... I just never feel you have MY back in mind. Hope I'm wrong and just don't understand enough.
The fact is that any military unit spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Any sports team spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Are they cowards and turncoats also? This argument is seriously one of the dumbest I have read anytime.
There are two signatures on any new LOA, ours and the company's. If you don't consider what the company is thinking then you will fail every time. It sounds sexy to say "Give me, give me, I demand this and that." and then when you fail at least you can pat your own back and crow for the crowd. If you actually want to accomplish something, you have to consider their point of view.
In the company's point of view, they see 15 pax a day. This provision in the PWA has been there for years and it's 15 not 1500, that is reality. So when they are considering giving away something, their return on investment is viewed as 15 pax a day. That is how they view it and no amount of personal attacks on your part is going to change it. If you want their signature on a document then you have to consider what they want.
Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.
Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.
All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.
So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.
In the end, you have to weigh the cost/benefits of each path. In this LOA I see the advantage to a deal is gaining a backstop block hour protection in the Pacific. The disadvantage is letting Delta continue to code share with 15 pax a day out of NRT. Which of those is more important to you?
The company sees the advantage in gaining the revenue from 15 pax a day out of NRT. They see the disadvantage in ceding control over capacity in the Pacific. Which of those is more important them? Next, at what point will they tip over and choose the path of no deal? They have that option and if you assume they don't then you are just lying to yourself. So in determining the tipping point, should you listen to your negotiators, who have lived this agreement for months or just an Internet blowhard that makes up whatever scenario suits them best? Don't forget that there are professional negotiators with decades of experience also in the room.
To me, the option of blustery and bloviation is complete surrender. It might make the bloviator look good to the forum crowd, but you have doomed your pilots to status quo. If you don't believe me, then look at USAPA. The last contract change at US Airways was in 2004. Look at their contract. But hey, they talk a good game. Maybe for you fighting words and reps making themselves look good give you all the compensation you need. I prefer cash myself. Who is delivering the cash and who is delivering the bull crap by the boat load?
09-24-2013, 01:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 5-9 block, kill removing
Posts: 385
I guess you are using the "with all due respect" argument. You say no insult intended and then rail about how I have been bought off by the company. With all due respect.
The fact is that any military unit spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Any sports team spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Are they cowards and turncoats also? This argument is seriously one of the dumbest I have read anytime.
There are two signatures on any new LOA, ours and the company's. If you don't consider what the company is thinking then you will fail every time. It sounds sexy to say "Give me, give me, I demand this and that." and then when you fail at least you can pat your own back and crow for the crowd. If you actually want to accomplish something, you have to consider their point of view.
In the company's point of view, they see 15 pax a day. This provision in the PWA has been there for years and it's 15 not 1500, that is reality. So when they are considering giving away something, their return on investment is viewed as 15 pax a day. That is how they view it and no amount of personal attacks on your part is going to change it. If you want their signature on a document then you have to consider what they want.
Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.
Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.
All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.
So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.
In the end, you have to weigh the cost/benefits of each path. In this LOA I see the advantage to a deal is gaining a backstop block hour protection in the Pacific. The disadvantage is letting Delta continue to code share with 15 pax a day out of NRT. Which of those is more important to you?
The company sees the advantage in gaining the revenue from 15 pax a day out of NRT. They see the disadvantage in ceding control over capacity in the Pacific. Which of those is more important them? Next, at what point will they tip over and choose the path of no deal? They have that option and if you assume they don't then you are just lying to yourself. So in determining the tipping point, should you listen to your negotiators, who have lived this agreement for months or just an Internet blowhard that makes up whatever scenario suits them best? Don't forget that there are professional negotiators with decades of experience also in the room.
To me, the option of blustery and bloviation is complete surrender. It might make the bloviator look good to the forum crowd, but you have doomed your pilots to status quo. If you don't believe me, then look at USAPA. The last contract change at US Airways was in 2004. Look at their contract. But hey, they talk a good game. Maybe for you fighting words and reps making themselves look good give you all the compensation you need. I prefer cash myself. Who is delivering the cash and who is delivering the bull crap by the boat load?
The fact is that any military unit spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Any sports team spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Are they cowards and turncoats also? This argument is seriously one of the dumbest I have read anytime.
There are two signatures on any new LOA, ours and the company's. If you don't consider what the company is thinking then you will fail every time. It sounds sexy to say "Give me, give me, I demand this and that." and then when you fail at least you can pat your own back and crow for the crowd. If you actually want to accomplish something, you have to consider their point of view.
In the company's point of view, they see 15 pax a day. This provision in the PWA has been there for years and it's 15 not 1500, that is reality. So when they are considering giving away something, their return on investment is viewed as 15 pax a day. That is how they view it and no amount of personal attacks on your part is going to change it. If you want their signature on a document then you have to consider what they want.
Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.
Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.
All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.
So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.
In the end, you have to weigh the cost/benefits of each path. In this LOA I see the advantage to a deal is gaining a backstop block hour protection in the Pacific. The disadvantage is letting Delta continue to code share with 15 pax a day out of NRT. Which of those is more important to you?
The company sees the advantage in gaining the revenue from 15 pax a day out of NRT. They see the disadvantage in ceding control over capacity in the Pacific. Which of those is more important them? Next, at what point will they tip over and choose the path of no deal? They have that option and if you assume they don't then you are just lying to yourself. So in determining the tipping point, should you listen to your negotiators, who have lived this agreement for months or just an Internet blowhard that makes up whatever scenario suits them best? Don't forget that there are professional negotiators with decades of experience also in the room.
To me, the option of blustery and bloviation is complete surrender. It might make the bloviator look good to the forum crowd, but you have doomed your pilots to status quo. If you don't believe me, then look at USAPA. The last contract change at US Airways was in 2004. Look at their contract. But hey, they talk a good game. Maybe for you fighting words and reps making themselves look good give you all the compensation you need. I prefer cash myself. Who is delivering the cash and who is delivering the bull crap by the boat load?
Well, you just validated Roadkills' point
09-24-2013, 01:47 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
You just can't stop being a d!ck can you alfa...
Almost right...you mean you have no points.
See there? Being a d!ck might be easy, but it adds nothing does it.
That is an incorrect characterization designed to get the required response of Delta pilots caving in. If Delta says they need a change to the status quo, then change it. If they can't operate 316 slots per week profitably, then cut it back to what you can operate. It is in NO WAY connected to code share capability beyond NRT. Management is hoping we'll connect what is not connected, but the two have nothing to do with each other operationally. They're only connected because our current Scope connects them. It was prescient and forward thinking language that foresaw this very scenario. Now DALPA is about to give it away for nothing...and without MEMRAT.
Pure factless personal opinion on your part.
You're the one flat wrong alfa. 85% is not an improvement. That's just pure political spin. If 85% is not enough and management needs to pull it down to 70%, there's no way DALPA would not give in to that demand. You and all the other DALPA loyalists will be right back here telling us: "we can't force management to operate empty airplanes because of some ancient agreement...we need to start thinking like investors!"
Nobody's asking them to lock in 100%. Only you are saying that. We're just saying hold firm to what's in our contract. For once, just pay attention to what's in our contract.
The obvious corollary to your statement then is: Why would managment give up ANY of its control over how many flights it operates out of NRT for a mere 15 pax per day of code share? No managment would do that. It should tell you something as to the much larger issue behind this.
We have no backstop protections now, and we'll have none after this LOA is signed. The percentages will just be renegotiated as desired by managment with a union hungry for constructive engagement. What will stay, is unlimited code share.
You've read your ALPA talking points well grasshopper!
Carl
Almost right...you mean you have no points.
See there? Being a d!ck might be easy, but it adds nothing does it.
So for us, we can either watch the code shares go away or try to get something for allowing them to continue. We have no block hour protection now. 85% will be an improvement. It is just people like you try to frame it as if we are "giving up" 15% which is flat out wrong.
So you can frame it as "what do I say when all the wide bodies go away" and that is not an emotional argument, but if I correct your misrepresentation of the new protections it is emotional. Got it. For everyone else, realize that both sides have options, not just us, and you need to weigh each sides options with the plusses and minuses of each path. All this emotional baggage is just political BS and does nothing to help analyze which choice is best for us.
Carl
09-24-2013, 01:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,235
What an incredible comeback. Go USA!
09-24-2013, 01:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
The two things coexist: Alfa takes a very rational approach to most problems, and expresses it with... inconsistent degrees of sensibility, let's say; and Roadkill wants to feel more like we've got a pitbull representing us.
We just all want a smart pitbull.
Alfa seems to be the kind of guy that worries more about the action than the politics. I respect that. It's just that there are political realities that need to be addressed, egos to stroke, and soft messages of hope to be delivered. And we want to get tucked in at night.
Why our MEC doesn't seem to be great at cajoling the membership, the way a guy like Carl excels at cajoling us on APC, I have no idea. I don't mean this as an insult to Carl. He's very good. Couldn't our union be just a little better at it?
We want rational behavior, smart choices, but right now, we sure don't feel like being humble. If Delta asked us for a $5 bill in exchange for a $10 bill, I'm not sure we'd go there.
So the frustrating thing is that Alfa will probably never be very good at singing us lullabys, and I wonder if our union will ever come out of a meeting and make pilot noises when they move their lips. And yet they have seemed to make some pretty effective calls, which I've validated with my (all too infrequent) vote.
Alfa is right on another point, USAPA is a great prototype of a union that promised they could be all things, and made the right noises, for just long enough.
Maybe deep down, "in places we don't talk about, we prefer to have Alfa on that wall".
Sure would feel nice to say "no", though. Just once.
We just all want a smart pitbull.
Alfa seems to be the kind of guy that worries more about the action than the politics. I respect that. It's just that there are political realities that need to be addressed, egos to stroke, and soft messages of hope to be delivered. And we want to get tucked in at night.
Why our MEC doesn't seem to be great at cajoling the membership, the way a guy like Carl excels at cajoling us on APC, I have no idea. I don't mean this as an insult to Carl. He's very good. Couldn't our union be just a little better at it?
We want rational behavior, smart choices, but right now, we sure don't feel like being humble. If Delta asked us for a $5 bill in exchange for a $10 bill, I'm not sure we'd go there.
So the frustrating thing is that Alfa will probably never be very good at singing us lullabys, and I wonder if our union will ever come out of a meeting and make pilot noises when they move their lips. And yet they have seemed to make some pretty effective calls, which I've validated with my (all too infrequent) vote.
Alfa is right on another point, USAPA is a great prototype of a union that promised they could be all things, and made the right noises, for just long enough.
Maybe deep down, "in places we don't talk about, we prefer to have Alfa on that wall".
Sure would feel nice to say "no", though. Just once.
09-24-2013, 02:14 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
09-24-2013, 02:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Body at sea level; heart at 70,000+
Posts: 1,349
09-24-2013, 02:36 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
We are through the looking glass here.
This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific.
What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender.
I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up.
They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table?
I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders.
By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence.
Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract".
Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita.
This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific.
What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender.
I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up.
They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table?
I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders.
By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence.
Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract".
Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita.
09-24-2013, 02:43 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
We are through the looking glass here.
This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific.
What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender.
I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up.
They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table?
I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders.
By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence.
Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract".
Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita.
This is not Section 6. We don't have to do any of this. So we are just voluntarily giving up something in our contract that has tangible value for us in exchange for "protections" that allow the company to cut 15% of the hours we currently fly in the Pacific.
What kind of a deal is that? Its pure insanity. Only DALPA could spin this as some sort of good deal. That's not protection. That's total surrender.
I am fully aware that the situation in NRT is changing and the company no longer wants to fly 316 slots. They will lose money if they do. But so what? That is our contract. Those are our jobs. They also lose money by paying reserves a monthly guarantee. Let's get rid of that while were at it. tsquare's stock will go up.
They lose money by paying us per diem. They lose money by allowing us to have vacations. They lose money by paying us when we're sick. etc. etc. etc. If the company is hurting, then why isn't all that stuff on the table?
I don't care if we have a section in our contract that requires them to keep a 747 in standby orbit over FTB's house 24 hours a day fully loaded with breadsticks and cognac and staffed with Oregon cheerleaders.
By God, they will keep that airplane up there and if they want to get rid of that contractual requirement then they are going to have to pay me something in return. Promising to only cut 15% of our jobs is not something in return. Its an insult to my intelligence.
Our PWA is NOT open right now. To quote a famous CEO, "A contract is a contract".
Put me on the negotiating committee. I'd take an immediate 5% raise and a 100% of current block hours guarantee in exchange for those slots. Nothing less. Otherwise, bye-bye codesharing at Narita.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
