Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-09-2013, 03:33 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Agreed.
...
You know, I'm going to throw a rock into our collective puddles here, but I want to know: why the hell does it matter what individuals want?
We always start out by making a list of demands (step in one on the path to disappointment), invariably put payrates up top, retirement second Scope, well, Scope egts sort of a glancing pass. Section 23 goes MIA.
Then we charge up the hill, get a little of the headline payrate number we asked for, and wonder what the happened.
...
What if we did this:
1) Establish an appropriate amount of flying that needs to be performed by the Delta pilots. FIGHT FOR THAT.
2) Establish an appropriate amount of total gains for the Delta pilots *. FIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL NUMBER / %.
3) Determine the appropriate fixes needed in our contract to make it acceptable to work under. This includes scheduling sections.
4) Determine the sort of medical plan a pilot actually requires to remain healthy for the long-term, and to stop subsidizing our own employment.
5) Determine other areas where we are subsidizing our employment, such as insufficient per-diem, uniforms, etc.
6) Determine what's left over. Apply that to payrate increases.
There really are only two things that truly matter: how much of the flying belongs to us, and how much of the revenue belongs to us. After we obtain this, we should fix our contract. After we do that, we should stop the bleeding of money via health insurance and other nickel-and-dime issues. At that point, our net would be higher already.
Only then should we arrive at payrate increases. These should be completely decoupled from an initial wish-list, or other airlines. The end result might be more than PD requires, or less. My point is that we should only fight for two things, and solve the details later. By invariably focusing on payrate headline numbers, we constantly fail to monitor concessionary trades, and we especially fail to worry about the total value of the deal. IOW, I think we might tend to be so short-sighted, that we leave money on the table.
I wonder if we should have a two-part contract negotiation, where we go to bat for a total number, and a proper amount of flying, then we poll the membership on how to apply these gains. Regardless of whether the nature of the gains should be baked into a TA, or not, I'm pretty convinced we're making a mistake by putting payrates at the top of the list. The total value of a contract is not determined by payrates alone. It's:
Advancement (meaning Scope gains + other contractual gains) + (credit * payrates) + any preferential tax treatment such as increasing DC contributions - Costs of employment
I'm tired of placing priorities negotiating backwards, and asking the wrong questions. It's not about how much you want for the boat, or the house, but about getting as much as we can, and leaving nothing on the table.
...
You know, I'm going to throw a rock into our collective puddles here, but I want to know: why the hell does it matter what individuals want?
We always start out by making a list of demands (step in one on the path to disappointment), invariably put payrates up top, retirement second Scope, well, Scope egts sort of a glancing pass. Section 23 goes MIA.
Then we charge up the hill, get a little of the headline payrate number we asked for, and wonder what the happened.
...
What if we did this:
1) Establish an appropriate amount of flying that needs to be performed by the Delta pilots. FIGHT FOR THAT.
2) Establish an appropriate amount of total gains for the Delta pilots *. FIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL NUMBER / %.
3) Determine the appropriate fixes needed in our contract to make it acceptable to work under. This includes scheduling sections.
4) Determine the sort of medical plan a pilot actually requires to remain healthy for the long-term, and to stop subsidizing our own employment.
5) Determine other areas where we are subsidizing our employment, such as insufficient per-diem, uniforms, etc.
6) Determine what's left over. Apply that to payrate increases.
There really are only two things that truly matter: how much of the flying belongs to us, and how much of the revenue belongs to us. After we obtain this, we should fix our contract. After we do that, we should stop the bleeding of money via health insurance and other nickel-and-dime issues. At that point, our net would be higher already.
Only then should we arrive at payrate increases. These should be completely decoupled from an initial wish-list, or other airlines. The end result might be more than PD requires, or less. My point is that we should only fight for two things, and solve the details later. By invariably focusing on payrate headline numbers, we constantly fail to monitor concessionary trades, and we especially fail to worry about the total value of the deal. IOW, I think we might tend to be so short-sighted, that we leave money on the table.
I wonder if we should have a two-part contract negotiation, where we go to bat for a total number, and a proper amount of flying, then we poll the membership on how to apply these gains. Regardless of whether the nature of the gains should be baked into a TA, or not, I'm pretty convinced we're making a mistake by putting payrates at the top of the list. The total value of a contract is not determined by payrates alone. It's:
Advancement (meaning Scope gains + other contractual gains) + (credit * payrates) + any preferential tax treatment such as increasing DC contributions - Costs of employment
I'm tired of placing priorities negotiating backwards, and asking the wrong questions. It's not about how much you want for the boat, or the house, but about getting as much as we can, and leaving nothing on the table.
Carl
10-09-2013, 04:06 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
These are the kind of statements that certainly make me question whether you have any resolve at all...other than doing what you're told to do. The phrase "growing a pair" comes to mind, but I'm reminded of a female friend who says we've got to start replacing that phrase with "growing a vagina". After all, "those things take a pounding."
Carl
10-09-2013, 04:21 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Don't get me wrong, I would love it and I think the company could afford it now but they will refuse, we will become deadlocked and the NMB will park us a la AA.
How do we get around this dilemma? That is the question for anyone out in APC land. I'm all for huge raises but how do we get past the NMB?
Denny
How do we get around this dilemma? That is the question for anyone out in APC land. I'm all for huge raises but how do we get past the NMB?
Denny
In case you're wondering what part of the RLA coverage I wish we had, it's the part that prevents labor contracts from being unilaterally gutted in a bankruptcy. While dealing with the NMB process of not allowing a strike right away is definitely a problem, it's at least a benefit knowing your contract can't be gutted in a bankruptcy. The problem for us is that this bankruptcy protection is only for the railroads. Airlines are carved out of that protection for labor.
Thus we have the worst of all worlds. Near prevention from striking, but our contracts immediately killable in bankruptcy. You would think that would be number one on ALPA's most wanted list. Instead, ALPA is silent on it.
Carl
10-09-2013, 05:17 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Sink,
All of your observations are valid.
It is the individual MEC members that give direction to the negotiating committee during the "direction phase".
The key to the process is to have individual reps that are willing to step up, speak up and give direction in such a way that you get the other guys in the room to go along.
Some guys are happy with the ideas the NC suggests. Others are more "interactive", and press for goals that are important to their constituents, but may not be to other Councils. Some guys are good at building consensus, others try to force things through by force of will (or numbers).
You, as a member of an LEC, get to decide what kind of rep you send to speak for you. LEC elections get a remarkably low turn out, but it is the people that you send that ultimately make these decisions. I can't emphasize that enough.
You need to ask the right questions of anyone running for office, and make sure you're satisfied with the answers they give.
Nu
All of your observations are valid.
It is the individual MEC members that give direction to the negotiating committee during the "direction phase".
The key to the process is to have individual reps that are willing to step up, speak up and give direction in such a way that you get the other guys in the room to go along.
Some guys are happy with the ideas the NC suggests. Others are more "interactive", and press for goals that are important to their constituents, but may not be to other Councils. Some guys are good at building consensus, others try to force things through by force of will (or numbers).
You, as a member of an LEC, get to decide what kind of rep you send to speak for you. LEC elections get a remarkably low turn out, but it is the people that you send that ultimately make these decisions. I can't emphasize that enough.
You need to ask the right questions of anyone running for office, and make sure you're satisfied with the answers they give.
Nu
Carl
10-09-2013, 05:21 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Well, first off, we stop comparing our pay to the other bankrupt airlines, when we are no longer bankrupt. We should have set SWA's 737 pay rate as our starting point, for our 737's and worked our way up through the other fleets from there.
Now, on the whole NMB thing. This is why we need National ALPA representation, vs. DPA. This is why we need PAC dollars. We need to politically persuade the guys who write the laws, to change them to our favor, or at least stop favoring management so heavily. Put a cap on the parking thing, make it 6 months max, then released to self help.
If that won't work, then we need National to start talking about a nation wide SOS, all ALPA carriers, for a week or so. Let the politicians drive from DC to their condos in Palm Beach. See if that gets their attention.
The problem with going down that road is, the politicians will quickly be looking to sell our jobs to China, India and the UAE, for more $$$$ into their re-election campaigns. Heck, they are looking to sell us out right now.
Why there was never a call for a National SOS after 9-11, when all our pay was being cut and our pensions being flushed is beyond me. I said back then, as soon as Delta filed bankruptcy and gutted our contract, we should have all filed for bankruptcy too. If for no other reason than to put a media spotlight on what was going on with our pay/pensions.
Until management and the politicians believe we are ready and willing to use the nuclear option, we will always be giving more than we are getting in contract negotiations. Since I've been working here (and long before I came along) every pay raise was coupled with concessions in other areas of the new contract. We are always giving away scope, benefits, work rules, manning formulas, etc. in exchange for pay rates...and as soon as the company starts losing money, we'll give the pay rates back too.
Now, on the whole NMB thing. This is why we need National ALPA representation, vs. DPA. This is why we need PAC dollars. We need to politically persuade the guys who write the laws, to change them to our favor, or at least stop favoring management so heavily. Put a cap on the parking thing, make it 6 months max, then released to self help.
If that won't work, then we need National to start talking about a nation wide SOS, all ALPA carriers, for a week or so. Let the politicians drive from DC to their condos in Palm Beach. See if that gets their attention.
The problem with going down that road is, the politicians will quickly be looking to sell our jobs to China, India and the UAE, for more $$$$ into their re-election campaigns. Heck, they are looking to sell us out right now.
Why there was never a call for a National SOS after 9-11, when all our pay was being cut and our pensions being flushed is beyond me. I said back then, as soon as Delta filed bankruptcy and gutted our contract, we should have all filed for bankruptcy too. If for no other reason than to put a media spotlight on what was going on with our pay/pensions.
Until management and the politicians believe we are ready and willing to use the nuclear option, we will always be giving more than we are getting in contract negotiations. Since I've been working here (and long before I came along) every pay raise was coupled with concessions in other areas of the new contract. We are always giving away scope, benefits, work rules, manning formulas, etc. in exchange for pay rates...and as soon as the company starts losing money, we'll give the pay rates back too.
Carl
10-09-2013, 05:31 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,738
I will ask the DALPA Political Affairs guy and see what he says and let you know. I have a feeling he may say they are busy fighting Emirates' expansion into JFK on the Milan route.
The RLA/NMB thing should have been fought a long time ago.
10-09-2013, 05:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Ref Carl's question:
I would think that rep would vote it down, unless they made a call that their directions were negotiable. Either they were 100% firm, and the rep has to vote the TA down, or they're not, and the rep can use their discretion.
If you send in your attorney to negotiate a settlement along a set of parameters, you know it's within the realm of possibilities he'll come back with the "best he could get", even if below your bottom line.
Conversely, if you're the attorney, and you don't get a deal at your bottom line, but the other party offers something else, I would imagine it's your duty to pass it on to your client for a decision.
It's up to the client to determine what is acceptable or not. The line between an egregious failure, and a an honest attempt to represent, would be super fine, at that point. As long as the customer gets to make the call, it's probably OK.
I have no doubt that our LEC reps gave direction for TA2012 during the "direction phase." The real question is: What is a rep to do when faced with an already signed TA that does not comport with the direction you gave? What is a rep to do when told by the negotiators that "you're not going to like the company's plan B?"
If you send in your attorney to negotiate a settlement along a set of parameters, you know it's within the realm of possibilities he'll come back with the "best he could get", even if below your bottom line.
Conversely, if you're the attorney, and you don't get a deal at your bottom line, but the other party offers something else, I would imagine it's your duty to pass it on to your client for a decision.
It's up to the client to determine what is acceptable or not. The line between an egregious failure, and a an honest attempt to represent, would be super fine, at that point. As long as the customer gets to make the call, it's probably OK.
10-09-2013, 05:43 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
I would say there is no "honest attempt to represent" you, and even if you "get to make the call," if your agent misrepresents your options, you're not going to make a sound decision.
And that's what we had with the sales job on C2012.
...oh, and then your attorney would be sanctioned or disbarred.
Last edited by Purple Drank; 10-09-2013 at 06:17 PM.
10-09-2013, 05:48 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
not long ago I was flying atl-mci during a bad line of storms. our flight plan had us over texas trying to bust through when we realized we were the only ones up there.
but low and behold someone popped up on TCAS 4000' below and ahead of us. either the Captain (a fun Timbo type) or me called the guy an idiot for flying around this weather. then we realized he might be on to something so "follow the idiot!"
the guy seemed to do a great job until we realized he wasn't going to MCI. we broke out anyways not soon after that and landed as the storms rolled past the field.
all that to say, the guy following the idiot is never the fool. IMHO.
but low and behold someone popped up on TCAS 4000' below and ahead of us. either the Captain (a fun Timbo type) or me called the guy an idiot for flying around this weather. then we realized he might be on to something so "follow the idiot!"
the guy seemed to do a great job until we realized he wasn't going to MCI. we broke out anyways not soon after that and landed as the storms rolled past the field.
all that to say, the guy following the idiot is never the fool. IMHO.
10-09-2013, 05:51 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
