Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-14-2014, 02:47 PM
meh
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 828
I've noticed lately that very time you post, you stand up this straw-man argument "massive job loss forum guys said" and then knock it down.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to push this false point--that is NOT what anyone on here ever said, ONLY YOU. What we said has been borne out: REDUCED MANNING NEEDS, from some high # of increase to some medium increase. We said the contract gave increased productivity that would reduce our manning needs--not DECREASE to negative numbers. We said that instead of the company needing to hire "1000" replacements, they would only need to hire "300" (numbers just thrown in by way of illustration, not specifics). We said that rather than hiring the 1 for 1 retirement replacements PLUS the manning for the new airframes, the company would only have to hire some fraction of that amount.
One of the classic failures of logic in debate is when someone builds up a "bogus argument", then falsely claims that argument represents the side of their opponent, then destroys the argument---and claims they've won. Except all they've really done is tear down their OWN bogus and falsely attributed argument: the "Straw Man Argument". It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to fool your audience, always.
You go to such lengths to move the discussion away from the ACTUAL points you're attempting to obfuscate, and to falsely characterize them as something foolish you're able to tear down... I don't understand why.
Why can't you just discuss the costing numbers on their merit? Some of us on here think that the allocations of "# of jobs gained/lost" for various contract changes turn out to not have been accurately costed. Why is that such a threat to you that you constantly attack and attack the concept?
Calculations were made for how many pilot jobs each of these, and others, would gain or lose:
-vacation pay
-reserve full changes
-allowing reserves to be involuntarily used above 70ish, up to ALV+15
-changing 31 day months during peak flying to 30 day months, reducing manning needs by 1/31 for those months
Stating that, without various productivity gains, the company would have had to hire MORE than it now has to hire, and that this reduced hiring IS A LOSS TO US, is a far cry from YOUR bogusly attributed position that "there would be massive job loss and furloughs". Please... it's time for you to stop your every-single-post-spin on this position. Much of the rest of your valuable input and thoughts are poisoned by the clear invalidity of your straw-man argument in this area, and I wish you didn't dilute your position this way.
05-14-2014, 02:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
I understand what the MEC was trying to accomplish. I'm just feeling particularly argumentative today.
I think we sold our Narita scope too cheap. We've been doing that for a long time now. Its my opinion that we've been leaving money on the table with all the recent LOAs and MOUs. I don't think constructive engagement is working anymore. DALPA needs to get more aggressive. Management is outmaneuvering us and playing on our residual fear from the near death experience we had in bankruptcy.
I'm afraid its about to happen again with this 117 negotiation. We have a lot more leverage here than the union wants to acknowledge.
If our union had the will to do so, we could throw a great big handful of sand into the well-oiled Delta machine this summer. Perfectly legally and well within the bounds of the Railway Labor Act. But they won't do it. They'd rather maintain peace and good will toward men and have Richard come to their meetings in "closed session" and whisper some juicy info to them and stroke their egos.
We deserve more money. We deserve a union that will go and get it for us.
Don't misunderstand. I don't want the DPA. I want to keep ALPA. I just want to slap them upside the head and get some fire back into the organization. This "cooperation not confrontation" thing has run its course. Management is eating our lunch.
I think we sold our Narita scope too cheap. We've been doing that for a long time now. Its my opinion that we've been leaving money on the table with all the recent LOAs and MOUs. I don't think constructive engagement is working anymore. DALPA needs to get more aggressive. Management is outmaneuvering us and playing on our residual fear from the near death experience we had in bankruptcy.
I'm afraid its about to happen again with this 117 negotiation. We have a lot more leverage here than the union wants to acknowledge.
If our union had the will to do so, we could throw a great big handful of sand into the well-oiled Delta machine this summer. Perfectly legally and well within the bounds of the Railway Labor Act. But they won't do it. They'd rather maintain peace and good will toward men and have Richard come to their meetings in "closed session" and whisper some juicy info to them and stroke their egos.
We deserve more money. We deserve a union that will go and get it for us.
Don't misunderstand. I don't want the DPA. I want to keep ALPA. I just want to slap them upside the head and get some fire back into the organization. This "cooperation not confrontation" thing has run its course. Management is eating our lunch.
I am curious how you would say throwing a great big monkey wrench is legal under the RLA. We were found in violation when pilots just refused to fly overtime. The court even acknowledged the union had nothing to do with the lack of overtime flying but ruled the union had a duty to control it's members. Lots of other rulings in the last 15 years. Can you cite one that would allow what your saying?
05-14-2014, 02:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Sailing,
I've noticed lately that very time you post, you stand up this straw-man argument "massive job loss forum guys said" and then knock it down.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to push this false point--that is NOT what anyone on here ever said, ONLY YOU. What we said has been borne out: REDUCED MANNING NEEDS. We said the contract gave increased productivity that would reduce our manning needs. We said that instead of the company needing to hire "1000" replacements, they would only need to hire "300" (numbers just thrown in by way of illustration, not specifics). We said that rather than hiring the 1 for 1 retirement replacements PLUS the manning for the new airframes, the company would only have to hire some fraction of that amount.
One of the classic failures of logic in debate is when someone builds up a "bogus argument", then falsely claims that argument represents the side of their opponent, then destroys the argument---and claims they've won. Except all they've really done is tear down their OWN bogus and falsely attributed argument: the "Straw Man Argument". It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to fool your audience, always.
You go to such lengths to move the discussion away from the ACTUAL points you're attempting to obfuscate, and to falsely characterize them as something foolish you're able to tear down... I don't understand why.
Why can't you just discuss the costing numbers on their merit? Some of us on here think that the allocations of "# of jobs gained/lost" for various contract changes turn out to not have been accurately costed. Why is that such a threat to you that you constantly attack and attack the concept?
Calculations were made for how many pilot jobs each of these, and others, would gain or lose:
-vacation pay
-reserve full changes
-allowing reserves to be involuntarily used above 70ish, up to ALV+15
-changing 31 day months during peak flying to 30 day months, reducing manning needs by 1/31 for those months
Stating that, without various productivity gains, the company would have had to hire MORE than it now has to hire, and that this reduced hiring IS A LOSS TO US, is a far cry from YOUR bogusly attributed position that "there would be massive job loss and furloughs". Please... it's time for you to stop your every-single-post-spin on this position. Much of the rest of your valuable input and thoughts are poisoned by the clear invalidity of your straw-man argument in this area, and I wish you didn't dilute your position this way.
I've noticed lately that very time you post, you stand up this straw-man argument "massive job loss forum guys said" and then knock it down.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to push this false point--that is NOT what anyone on here ever said, ONLY YOU. What we said has been borne out: REDUCED MANNING NEEDS. We said the contract gave increased productivity that would reduce our manning needs. We said that instead of the company needing to hire "1000" replacements, they would only need to hire "300" (numbers just thrown in by way of illustration, not specifics). We said that rather than hiring the 1 for 1 retirement replacements PLUS the manning for the new airframes, the company would only have to hire some fraction of that amount.
One of the classic failures of logic in debate is when someone builds up a "bogus argument", then falsely claims that argument represents the side of their opponent, then destroys the argument---and claims they've won. Except all they've really done is tear down their OWN bogus and falsely attributed argument: the "Straw Man Argument". It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to fool your audience, always.
You go to such lengths to move the discussion away from the ACTUAL points you're attempting to obfuscate, and to falsely characterize them as something foolish you're able to tear down... I don't understand why.
Why can't you just discuss the costing numbers on their merit? Some of us on here think that the allocations of "# of jobs gained/lost" for various contract changes turn out to not have been accurately costed. Why is that such a threat to you that you constantly attack and attack the concept?
Calculations were made for how many pilot jobs each of these, and others, would gain or lose:
-vacation pay
-reserve full changes
-allowing reserves to be involuntarily used above 70ish, up to ALV+15
-changing 31 day months during peak flying to 30 day months, reducing manning needs by 1/31 for those months
Stating that, without various productivity gains, the company would have had to hire MORE than it now has to hire, and that this reduced hiring IS A LOSS TO US, is a far cry from YOUR bogusly attributed position that "there would be massive job loss and furloughs". Please... it's time for you to stop your every-single-post-spin on this position. Much of the rest of your valuable input and thoughts are poisoned by the clear invalidity of your straw-man argument in this area, and I wish you didn't dilute your position this way.
05-14-2014, 02:52 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
05-14-2014, 03:02 PM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,747
Okay guys... I'm trying to figure out where I went stupid on bidding in June.
I asked for:
1. Prefer off June xx, xx, xx, xx
2. Prefer off Sundays, Tuesdays, Saturdays
3. Prefer daily credit > 5:14
4. Award Pairing if length 1 day
5. Award Pairing if length 2 days
6. Award pairing if length 3 days
7. Avoid pairing if pairing length > 4 days.
I didn't get unstacked and it gave me 3 5-days trips while awarding day trips to those junior to me. What gives? It even says "honored" in the reasons report to avoid pairings longer than 4 days, but it obviously didn't honor it.
I asked for:
1. Prefer off June xx, xx, xx, xx
2. Prefer off Sundays, Tuesdays, Saturdays
3. Prefer daily credit > 5:14
4. Award Pairing if length 1 day
5. Award Pairing if length 2 days
6. Award pairing if length 3 days
7. Avoid pairing if pairing length > 4 days.
I didn't get unstacked and it gave me 3 5-days trips while awarding day trips to those junior to me. What gives? It even says "honored" in the reasons report to avoid pairings longer than 4 days, but it obviously didn't honor it.
05-14-2014, 03:07 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Did you see the irony of the "honored" on the avoid trips greater than 4 days?
05-14-2014, 03:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
I understand what the MEC was trying to accomplish. I'm just feeling particularly argumentative today.
I think we sold our Narita scope too cheap. We've been doing that for a long time now. Its my opinion that we've been leaving money on the table with all the recent LOAs and MOUs. I don't think constructive engagement is working anymore. DALPA needs to get more aggressive. Management is outmaneuvering us and playing on our residual fear from the near death experience we had in bankruptcy.
I'm afraid its about to happen again with this 117 negotiation. We have a lot more leverage here than the union wants to acknowledge.
If our union had the will to do so, we could throw a great big handful of sand into the well-oiled Delta machine this summer. Perfectly legally and well within the bounds of the Railway Labor Act. But they won't do it. They'd rather maintain peace and good will toward men and have Richard come to their meetings in "closed session" and whisper some juicy info to them and stroke their egos.
We deserve more money. We deserve a union that will go and get it for us.
Don't misunderstand. I don't want the DPA. I want to keep ALPA. I just want to slap them upside the head and get some fire back into the organization. This "cooperation not confrontation" thing has run its course. Management is eating our lunch.
I think we sold our Narita scope too cheap. We've been doing that for a long time now. Its my opinion that we've been leaving money on the table with all the recent LOAs and MOUs. I don't think constructive engagement is working anymore. DALPA needs to get more aggressive. Management is outmaneuvering us and playing on our residual fear from the near death experience we had in bankruptcy.
I'm afraid its about to happen again with this 117 negotiation. We have a lot more leverage here than the union wants to acknowledge.
If our union had the will to do so, we could throw a great big handful of sand into the well-oiled Delta machine this summer. Perfectly legally and well within the bounds of the Railway Labor Act. But they won't do it. They'd rather maintain peace and good will toward men and have Richard come to their meetings in "closed session" and whisper some juicy info to them and stroke their egos.
We deserve more money. We deserve a union that will go and get it for us.
Don't misunderstand. I don't want the DPA. I want to keep ALPA. I just want to slap them upside the head and get some fire back into the organization. This "cooperation not confrontation" thing has run its course. Management is eating our lunch.
05-14-2014, 03:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
I am curious how you would say throwing a great big monkey wrench is legal under the RLA. We were found in violation when pilots just refused to fly overtime. The court even acknowledged the union had nothing to do with the lack of overtime flying but ruled the union had a duty to control it's members. Lots of other rulings in the last 15 years. Can you cite one that would allow what your saying?
05-14-2014, 03:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,740
I know you guys like RA, but pleeze,pleeze, pleeze remember he understudied Lorenzo.
05-14-2014, 03:33 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
I'm on my 2nd CPR/PD while adhering to the contract.
Has DALPA offered any help? A loan, perhaps? Hell, no. They've hinted that "you'll be made whole at some point."
"At some point?"
So much for the "time value of money" DALPA preached during the C12 sales job.
But the MEC did sing kumba-yah with RA in Boston, so we've got that going for us.
Has DALPA offered any help? A loan, perhaps? Hell, no. They've hinted that "you'll be made whole at some point."
"At some point?"
So much for the "time value of money" DALPA preached during the C12 sales job.
But the MEC did sing kumba-yah with RA in Boston, so we've got that going for us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
