Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-07-2010, 05:11 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Stand by one two
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 03-07-2010 at 05:36 PM.
03-07-2010, 05:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
Heyas,
More to the point is that the whole LOA19/JPWA needs to be put in the same context as SOC.
The whole merger agreement was essentially the PMDal PWA. Moak and company chose the same course that the company did (some surprise, there), and that was "adopt and go", choosing the path that would take us to our version of SOC the fastest (AKA the JPWA). There was no attempt to "cherry pick" anything, and only in the case of "show stoppers" was there any real heed given to the NWA side.
Alot has been made about how much the JPWA passed at NWA versus DAL. Since the JPWA was essentially the DAL contract, I would consider the vote on the DAL side a referendum on what the fDAL guys thought of their contract, which, by the look of the result, was not very highly.
So let's put that in context of the 2012 negotiation. Do we simply go with "more of the same", or do we change our course and start to really consider "best practices"?
Nu
More to the point is that the whole LOA19/JPWA needs to be put in the same context as SOC.
The whole merger agreement was essentially the PMDal PWA. Moak and company chose the same course that the company did (some surprise, there), and that was "adopt and go", choosing the path that would take us to our version of SOC the fastest (AKA the JPWA). There was no attempt to "cherry pick" anything, and only in the case of "show stoppers" was there any real heed given to the NWA side.
Alot has been made about how much the JPWA passed at NWA versus DAL. Since the JPWA was essentially the DAL contract, I would consider the vote on the DAL side a referendum on what the fDAL guys thought of their contract, which, by the look of the result, was not very highly.
So let's put that in context of the 2012 negotiation. Do we simply go with "more of the same", or do we change our course and start to really consider "best practices"?
Nu
Last edited by NuGuy; 03-07-2010 at 05:24 PM.
03-07-2010, 05:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Retired, again...
Posts: 608
Nu
Hey Nu,
+1.......Nu for NC Chairman.................
+1.......Nu for NC Chairman.................
03-07-2010, 05:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny
03-07-2010, 05:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
So IA's work as a sort of GS in reverse seniority order, and you just take a peek as the dish comes by yor table, and you decide if you want a taste. The computer tells your answering machine you've been "assigned" one of 4 or 5 trips (if it's busy enough), you look them up, and you decide if you want to call back. It got to the point where senior guys were upset that IA's start at the bottom, not the top.
Simple enough?
Last edited by Sink r8; 03-07-2010 at 05:48 PM. Reason: My analogies were a little off...
03-07-2010, 05:35 PM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,745
Technically I do not think you are correct in saying an IA/IAWC is only a pro-offer of the trip. It IS your trip unless you can come up with a valid reason why you will not be legal or cannot make the sign in. When Scheduling Calls lists some of the valid reasons that could be used such as having consumed alcohol, not adequately rested, lack of childcare etc. If necessary call your CP.
but, I think most guys are smart enough avoid a IA if they want to.
03-07-2010, 05:36 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Technically I do not think you are correct in saying an IA/IAWC is only a pro-offer of the trip. It IS your trip unless you can come up with a valid reason why you will not be legal or cannot make the sign in. When Scheduling Calls lists some of the valid reasons that could be used such as having consumed alcohol, not adequately rested, lack of childcare etc. If necessary call your CP.
Denny
Denny
That is correct before they started using the automated system. Now it's up to you to call back.
03-07-2010, 05:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
I just wanted to clarify that it was not a pro-offer that you can refuse without just cause.Denny
03-07-2010, 05:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Heyas,
More to the point is that the whole LOA19/JPWA needs to be put in the same context as SOC.
The whole merger agreement was essentially the PMDal PWA. Moak and company chose the same course that the company did (some surprise, there), and that was "adopt and go", choosing the path that would take us to our version of SOC the fastest (AKA the JPWA). There was no attempt to "cherry pick" anything, and only in the case of "show stoppers" was there any real heed given to the NWA side.
Alot has been made about how much the JPWA passed at NWA versus DAL. Since the JPWA was essentially the DAL contract, I would consider the vote on the DAL side a referendum on what the fDAL guys thought of their contract, which, by the look of the result, was not very highly.
So let's put that in context of the 2012 negotiation. Do we simply go with "more of the same", or do we change our course and start to really consider "best practices"?
Nu
More to the point is that the whole LOA19/JPWA needs to be put in the same context as SOC.
The whole merger agreement was essentially the PMDal PWA. Moak and company chose the same course that the company did (some surprise, there), and that was "adopt and go", choosing the path that would take us to our version of SOC the fastest (AKA the JPWA). There was no attempt to "cherry pick" anything, and only in the case of "show stoppers" was there any real heed given to the NWA side.
Alot has been made about how much the JPWA passed at NWA versus DAL. Since the JPWA was essentially the DAL contract, I would consider the vote on the DAL side a referendum on what the fDAL guys thought of their contract, which, by the look of the result, was not very highly.
So let's put that in context of the 2012 negotiation. Do we simply go with "more of the same", or do we change our course and start to really consider "best practices"?
Nu
As far as the difference in voting numbers on the JCBA/LOA 19, I think most guys here saw it as voting on (drum roll) ...the JCBA/LOA 19. I.e. it was a direct reflection of how excited we were about the price we obtained for the merger vs. the worth of the merger (to us) and the prospect of an arbitrated SLI.
03-07-2010, 05:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
