Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-23-2014, 07:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,308
Not much to debate. I see you still enjoy insulting other members and questioning their integrity though. Keeps things interesting I guess.
05-23-2014, 07:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Seriously?
And for what? To undo the split duty part that we apparently wanted?
Wow. We got played.
05-23-2014, 07:57 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Nothing conspiratorial about connecting dots clamp. Sorry if you see a pattern.
Misinterpreting what information? You were pumped about information that nobody but reps had. That's my only point, not any perceived misinterpretation on your part. He didn't give you all the information...just the info that would help you to manage the forum miscreants.
If you say so.
If you say so.
Carl
Misinterpreting what information? You were pumped about information that nobody but reps had. That's my only point, not any perceived misinterpretation on your part. He didn't give you all the information...just the info that would help you to manage the forum miscreants.
If you say so.
If you say so.
Carl
I'll man up and say I was wrong. Can you?
05-23-2014, 08:01 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
05-23-2014, 08:08 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
That is false. My reps gave no such direction to the NC to pursue this in the 117
negotiations. In all the voluminous and constant emails from my council and the MEC over the last year, not a word
about pursuing CDO's. Not a word.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Carl
negotiations. In all the voluminous and constant emails from my council and the MEC over the last year, not a word
about pursuing CDO's. Not a word.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Carl
What's your explanation for this TA? The NC going rogue, and throwing CDO's in at the last session? Did you read
CE's reports frim the meeting? Are you calling him misguided, or just a liar, when he said it was obvious the MEC
was prepared for extensive questions on CDO's?
CE's reports frim the meeting? Are you calling him misguided, or just a liar, when he said it was obvious the MEC
was prepared for extensive questions on CDO's?
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.
I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs) were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.
Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.
I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.
Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--
· Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.
did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw 3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.
It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".
05-23-2014, 08:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,576
05-23-2014, 08:11 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
You couldn't have possibly interpreted incomplete information correctly. I say incomplete information because I'm assuming "you know who" didn't fax you the entire language of the TA.
Carl
05-23-2014, 08:13 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Yes I can. I do it all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong here. I think you were used for a specific function by a friend who you're loyal to.
You couldn't have possibly interpreted incomplete information correctly. I say incomplete information because I'm assuming "you know who" didn't fax you the entire language of the TA.
Carl
You couldn't have possibly interpreted incomplete information correctly. I say incomplete information because I'm assuming "you know who" didn't fax you the entire language of the TA.
Carl
05-23-2014, 08:16 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Gentlemen-
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.
I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs) were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.
Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.
I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.
Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--
· Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.
did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw 3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.
It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.
I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs) were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.
Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.
I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.
Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--
· Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.
did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw 3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.
It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".
05-23-2014, 08:21 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Thanks Check
I totally agree that there was a black hole of info ref the CDOs...Why?
That's what I want to know and I think is the crux of the concern.
It really doesn't paint a rosy picture of the MEC's "direction" since, theoretically, they work for the pilots.
If there was some proposal internally, to attempt to mitigate the 30 hour layovers, I can understand some spitballin' and groupthink, but is it really the MEC's duty to de-credit trips...The best way to do that is through rigs.
I totally agree that there was a black hole of info ref the CDOs...Why?
That's what I want to know and I think is the crux of the concern.
It really doesn't paint a rosy picture of the MEC's "direction" since, theoretically, they work for the pilots.
If there was some proposal internally, to attempt to mitigate the 30 hour layovers, I can understand some spitballin' and groupthink, but is it really the MEC's duty to de-credit trips...The best way to do that is through rigs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
