Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-24-2015, 08:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
05-24-2015, 08:17 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
05-24-2015, 08:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
05-24-2015, 08:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
No, what bothers me is that you can't respond like an adult. I actually thought about what you said as it being a collective decision, but chose to leave the post as is because I was interested in knowing what your definition of substandard is. You chose to respond with an attack. Fine. I hope you feel better now.
More drama
More drama
Instead, you admit to game playing?
So transparent you are.
05-24-2015, 08:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
*sigh* OK let me try again. What in your mind is so substandard that it wouldn't pass group's muster?
05-24-2015, 08:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
News Flash.
You're demographic is actually in the minority.
We have more new hires and pilots hired pre late 98 (prior furloughed) on the list than 'guys hoping enough other pilots sign their special parting gift hanging in the lounges so they don't look insignificant or like a tool' on our SLI.
Do the math. Numbers all verifiable on the flight ops web site. I'm going with game theory science that an agreement that does not have bottom or top end scope provisions that protect or begin to increase our share of the flying, will kill a TA just as quick as buying our raises with profit sharing.
Steady hiring, that only accelerated with time since '07, has watered down the 'wide body mafia' considerably. Basically, your likely along for the ride until the end.
How much of your picture is going to have ink on the matting?Positive ink, negative doesn't count. Maybe you can fill it out a fraction by hanging it on the fourth floor in the rookery where the penguins live. You know, birds with wings for no apparent reason.
05-24-2015, 08:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
1.) Third party verification and evaluation in relation to the use of sick leave.
2.) Touching profit sharing inside of section six.
Both are mortally toxic.
3.) Is highly detrimental to any TA. Wrapping a JV grievance settlement up in the contract.
05-24-2015, 08:55 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
05-25-2015, 12:45 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Ah, there it is. The ubiquitous ALPA straw man argument. The "just say no crowd." Hint: that crowd is growing exponentially every day.
And it's stunning how fast ALPA went from promising an "historic" contract to dispatching messengers here to tell us that if we vote down a crappy TA, we have "unreasonable contract demands."
I'm happy to wind the clock and cash profit sharing checks until RA figures it out. I'd wager many of "those approaching retirement" will be just fine doing the same.
And it's stunning how fast ALPA went from promising an "historic" contract to dispatching messengers here to tell us that if we vote down a crappy TA, we have "unreasonable contract demands."
I'm happy to wind the clock and cash profit sharing checks until RA figures it out. I'd wager many of "those approaching retirement" will be just fine doing the same.
Profit sharing removes the TVM argument right now.
Who cares about dragging out negotiations. Status quo doesn't suck and it sucks far far less than concessions during a time of significant profitability.
I don't have any rumor specifics except for some of the hot potatoes that I read here. I have a hard time believing them because they are so ridiculous.
If they are true, then how could anyone possibly cheerlead them?
There is absolutely no acceptable reason for concessions in this environment and no reason to get a speedy substandard TA.
05-25-2015, 04:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
Interesting. A company that made $4billion in profits, yet gave 25% of that to the employees. Not the owners, the employees. How would you, if you were management, reconcile that? How would you, as an owner, justify it? Now before you get your panties all twisted, I am not advocating for any kind of concessions or anything of the kind. I am really hoping for an adult conversation about the business as to how those that are saying "just say no" can tell me that with those numbers I will be able to get more of the pie. If you want to flame and call me a surrender monkey, then please save the electrons.
You make the point that the profit sharing check is getting pretty sizable. Well that's because A. the company is making a ton of money and B. we negotiated it and the company turned around and gave it to the rest of the employees. I don't fault them for that. If they hadn't then there very well may have been more unions on property now. They want to correct that and they could unilaterally change, not get rid of, the profit sharing for all but the 13,000 pilots that paid for it. I'm not advocating for that as I like coming to work with happy people and that would surely make an us against them mentality. How do you think that would go and how much would that save the company?
The really funny thing is that evey year, when the PS checks come out, I have an FA ask "Do you guys get PS too?"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
