Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-23-2009, 07:15 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Well Nu, that is stated all very well. There is a simple point in there. In a nut shell it is a difference in philosophy.
Most have given up and live their lives. That works out well for those that do not want to give information out, and not so well for those vocally demanding it, as they are a small majority.
Some how, we need to get the guys that do not give two hoots to care, and vote, and communicate accordingly.
Most have given up and live their lives. That works out well for those that do not want to give information out, and not so well for those vocally demanding it, as they are a small majority.
Some how, we need to get the guys that do not give two hoots to care, and vote, and communicate accordingly.
11-23-2009, 07:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
11-23-2009, 07:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 129
Yes, it does. The total pot of money paid to Delta pilots (North and South) goes up 1% of income. The North DC Targeting scheme directs how that 1% increase will be allocated, but there definitely is a 1% increase applied to that scheme. As explained to me, it should cause the "residual" amount to be higher, and that will be true for each of the increases over the next few years until the Target Plan sunsets in 2013.
BD
11-23-2009, 07:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
Nu,
Great post. Slow and the others are asking us to trust the MEC. However, I'm reminded of Reagan's old adage: "Trust but verify."
The problem is we can't verify because the communication isn't there. I wonder if the Communication Committee doesn't/can't put out info or is it because they themselves are being kept in the dark on purpose?
Great post. Slow and the others are asking us to trust the MEC. However, I'm reminded of Reagan's old adage: "Trust but verify."
The problem is we can't verify because the communication isn't there. I wonder if the Communication Committee doesn't/can't put out info or is it because they themselves are being kept in the dark on purpose?
11-23-2009, 07:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: MD88A
Posts: 310
And on the outside, State I and II aerodynamic improvements for 9, 88 and 90 fleets. Reference Super98 > Home for specific information. 16 additional 90's coming 2010.
What is your source on the additional 16 90s in 2010 or is this the number already quoted and from where? China, Japan, Middle East?
11-23-2009, 08:00 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
11-23-2009, 08:00 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
I note that you never responded to AlfaRomeo's post of why your opinions aren't supported by the facts. You reassert here that which is not true.
Why?
17% in direct pay hikes during the term of this contract. 3% more in your DC. 5.6% of the company...yet you say the Administration hasn't been trying...
Why?
17% in direct pay hikes during the term of this contract. 3% more in your DC. 5.6% of the company...yet you say the Administration hasn't been trying...
I think its time to stand up and say "STOP".
11-23-2009, 08:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
11-23-2009, 08:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
The trumpeting of "the number of RJs has gone down" is indeed hollow. The current MEC had NOTHING to do with it, wants to claim some kind of credit, BUT REFUSES to capitalize on it.
I asked LM directly at a Council 20 meeting "If the company doesn't want RJs, and WE don't want RJs, why not ratchet down scope why we have the opportunity to do so?"
LM went on to say "well, RJs are uneconomical at current fuel prices and we don't think oil will go back down". So, in other words, lets leave our scope to fate.
I don't need to remind ANY fNWA guy what happened the last few times we heard the phrase "we don't think..." from our MEC reps and/or negotiators.
Nu
11-23-2009, 08:43 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Heyas Check,
The trumpeting of "the number of RJs has gone down" is indeed hollow. The current MEC had NOTHING to do with it, wants to claim some kind of credit, BUT REFUSES to capitalize on it.
I asked LM directly at a Council 20 meeting "If the company doesn't want RJs, and WE don't want RJs, why not ratchet down scope why we have the opportunity to do so?"
LM went on to say "well, RJs are uneconomical at current fuel prices and we don't think oil will go back down". So, in other words, lets leave our scope to fate.
I don't need to remind ANY fNWA guy what happened the last few times we heard the phrase "we don't think..." from our MEC reps and/or negotiators.
Nu
The trumpeting of "the number of RJs has gone down" is indeed hollow. The current MEC had NOTHING to do with it, wants to claim some kind of credit, BUT REFUSES to capitalize on it.
I asked LM directly at a Council 20 meeting "If the company doesn't want RJs, and WE don't want RJs, why not ratchet down scope why we have the opportunity to do so?"
LM went on to say "well, RJs are uneconomical at current fuel prices and we don't think oil will go back down". So, in other words, lets leave our scope to fate.
I don't need to remind ANY fNWA guy what happened the last few times we heard the phrase "we don't think..." from our MEC reps and/or negotiators.
Nu
I have always stated that if they find a way to hang a GTR on the back of a CRJ-50 we are back where we started!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
