Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-10-2018, 12:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,740
Sadly, Capt. JellyBelly canceled out on his $500,000. condo in Chicago.
04-10-2018, 12:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,997
. It's the small victories...
04-10-2018, 06:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
04-10-2018, 08:21 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 54
TA1 roadshow was an absolute rainbow blowing sales job. Unfortunately the Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Society won't take ownership. Good riddance. . .
04-10-2018, 10:37 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: systems analyst
Posts: 757
Anyone have any gouge on non revving out of FCO (Rome). My ID travel is pretty basic.
Specifically do they upgrade based on who gets there first and not our traditional way, and do S2s do nothing for upgrades.
Thanks!
Specifically do they upgrade based on who gets there first and not our traditional way, and do S2s do nothing for upgrades.
Thanks!
04-11-2018, 01:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 534
Un-freaking-believable.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
And it is a nice deflection to say we have no faith in our pilot group. I have plenty of faith in the pilot group, just as I have plenty of faith in the American people. Sweving across lanes here, but too often the responsibility of representation leads to illusions of grandeur or sets in motion personal agendas. Too often the proverbial onion must be peeled back very far to learn one’s true intent, but it is far easier to see evidence of rot before actually finding it.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
And it is a nice deflection to say we have no faith in our pilot group. I have plenty of faith in the pilot group, just as I have plenty of faith in the American people. Sweving across lanes here, but too often the responsibility of representation leads to illusions of grandeur or sets in motion personal agendas. Too often the proverbial onion must be peeled back very far to learn one’s true intent, but it is far easier to see evidence of rot before actually finding it.
04-11-2018, 04:05 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 830
Yes, I was in the room.
Background:
The vote was to send the TA to the pilots without MEC recommendation. That is a matter of record and anyone who is interested should be able to get a copy of the resolution from our MEC Secretary.
One problem was that when the Admin and some Reps confronted the miscommunications (& outright lies) they were perceived as defending the TA when in reality they were just trying to ensure the pilots truly understood what the deal really was. I constantly got caught up in trying to explain 1 E. 9. and 1 P. 4. and being called a "liar" although quoting directly from the TA. In retrospect, the less said, the better. John Malone's Admin mostly remained off Social Media and was better for it.
History clearly indicates better was available by waiting. United did a +1 on our non existent rejected TA and we managed to +1 them while improving scope and leaving profit sharing alone. Some parts of the rejected TA were actually better than C15, but the retention of profit sharing more than made up for those changes.
- sorry about the edits, the battery in the keyboard is dead -
Background:
- the pilots wanted to see the deal
- Richard Anderson was committed to pulling the deal off the table since revenues were declining and he thought the agreement was too much
- The MEC had been votin the deal down and most every member trying to improve it. Dave Nestor made the most progress on sick verification issues because his own hospitalization provided an excellent objective example, sorta case study. Other Reps tried to leverage a % here or there. Anderson wasn't budging and replied to each attempted renegotiation with threats
- the Negotiating Committee and the MEC Chairman (leader of the MEC Administration) believed Richard Anderson and thought the pilots would be better taking the deal and instantly launching into the AMJV and Contract 2018
- Some of us were already a few pages into C2018
- Polling data said the TA would pass (my opinion- the polling failed to ask the pilots about managements asks)
The vote was to send the TA to the pilots without MEC recommendation. That is a matter of record and anyone who is interested should be able to get a copy of the resolution from our MEC Secretary.
One problem was that when the Admin and some Reps confronted the miscommunications (& outright lies) they were perceived as defending the TA when in reality they were just trying to ensure the pilots truly understood what the deal really was. I constantly got caught up in trying to explain 1 E. 9. and 1 P. 4. and being called a "liar" although quoting directly from the TA. In retrospect, the less said, the better. John Malone's Admin mostly remained off Social Media and was better for it.
History clearly indicates better was available by waiting. United did a +1 on our non existent rejected TA and we managed to +1 them while improving scope and leaving profit sharing alone. Some parts of the rejected TA were actually better than C15, but the retention of profit sharing more than made up for those changes.
- sorry about the edits, the battery in the keyboard is dead -
04-11-2018, 05:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Easier to look the thread over than reiterate all I learned there.
04-11-2018, 05:40 AM
Bye Bye Maddog!
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Movin' On UP........
Posts: 560
True, but as long as the discussion stays civil it is providing a lot of information and many Pilots can learn a thing or two by following along.
Some may say it is providing more disinformation than information and I will admit that most threads include opinions and disinformation posted as facts. Each reader can digest what they read and decide what is credible and what is not.
If curious or skeptical (skepticism is good) Forum members can conduct further research and come up with their own opinions.
Scoop
Some may say it is providing more disinformation than information and I will admit that most threads include opinions and disinformation posted as facts. Each reader can digest what they read and decide what is credible and what is not.
If curious or skeptical (skepticism is good) Forum members can conduct further research and come up with their own opinions.
Scoop
AR-15's with tons of ammo! Bring on the zombies!
04-11-2018, 06:28 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,237
So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Un-freaking-believable.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
Last edited by Buck Rogers; 04-11-2018 at 06:47 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
