Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-11-2010, 08:26 AM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
03-11-2010, 08:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: The New Delta
Posts: 115
This question need a bump! This one affects me so I figure I'd come out of my hole.
Doesn't seem right that we're supposed to act as equals now, but a D-S pilot hired on the same day gets a longevity raise, while a D-N brother has to wait around 2-3 months for a pay increase. (At NWA, we weren't given longevity until the first person in class finished IOE.) Wasn't there a resolution filed at one of the LEC meetings lately to bring us even? Any word on how that went? Seems like small potatoes until your waiting through those 2-3 months each year, then it really stings! Sure feels like a B-scale is being allowed.
Doesn't seem right that we're supposed to act as equals now, but a D-S pilot hired on the same day gets a longevity raise, while a D-N brother has to wait around 2-3 months for a pay increase. (At NWA, we weren't given longevity until the first person in class finished IOE.) Wasn't there a resolution filed at one of the LEC meetings lately to bring us even? Any word on how that went? Seems like small potatoes until your waiting through those 2-3 months each year, then it really stings! Sure feels like a B-scale is being allowed.
As you may know, parity was passed unanimously by the DAL-N LEC's. When it made it through the channels up to the MEC it died. Apparently it doesn't affect enough people (170 ish) to warrant a change. Keep in mind that it only affects those junior to the 12 year pay point. I agree that it's crap! Those of us that are affected by it are getting screwed twice, both by the lower pay rate for two months out of the year as well as the lower DC contribution until 2012. Is it fair? I would say no. But the argument was made that we got other enhancements that offset the negatives (higher payrates and a DC plan).
When I 1st started the debate on here I made the comment that I would not vote for a new contract that didn't fix this clause. But, after listening to the other side of the argument, I do now see both sides. I am still conflicted about it, but I do understand the logic from the MEC (eventhough I don't like it). While I agree with (I believe it was) Forgot to Bid that it's not really a "B" scale, it does create animosity in the 170 or so North guys that are affected by it. We'll see what happens.
03-11-2010, 08:43 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
This gets thrown in our face a lot on here. Let's think about what a yes vote really is. A yes vote just says that you would rather have what's on the table than what you think you might get if you prolong the process. In other words you prefer the "known" over what's behind "mystery door #2." We do not get a line item vote, so just because you vote yes does not mean you endorse everything in a contract.
In the case of LOA 19, since the DAL pilots had already approved it for themselves, we could either vote yes, or be left out in the cold.
In the case of LOA 19, since the DAL pilots had already approved it for themselves, we could either vote yes, or be left out in the cold.
03-11-2010, 08:48 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Yuck.. cars. I know there are a lot of you out there with a passion for them.. to me they are just transportation. That being said, if ANYBODY is interested in restoring a 1974 Karmann Ghia (WARNING: it needs a lot of work) It is free (well.. almost anyway) to a good home. It has a Super Bug motor that is probably worth as much as the car. Send me a PM if there is any interest.
03-11-2010, 08:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 202
They would never hit that bee hive!!
03-11-2010, 08:55 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Welcome to APC. This topic brought me out of the "lurker" category to the "poster" category as well. I'm a North guy who's affected by this also. This was discussed for a couple of days in the "PWA Required" thread.
As you may know, parity was passed unanimously by the DAL-N LEC's. When it made it through the channels up to the MEC it died. Apparently it doesn't affect enough people (170 ish) to warrant a change. Keep in mind that it only affects those junior to the 12 year pay point. I agree that it's crap! Those of us that are affected by it are getting screwed twice, both by the lower pay rate for two months out of the year as well as the lower DC contribution until 2012. Is it fair? I would say no. But the argument was made that we got other enhancements that offset the negatives (higher payrates and a DC plan).
When I 1st started the debate on here I made the comment that I would not vote for a new contract that didn't fix this clause. But, after listening to the other side of the argument, I do now see both sides. I am still conflicted about it, but I do understand the logic from the MEC (eventhough I don't like it). While I agree with (I believe it was) Forgot to Bid that it's not really a "B" scale, it does create animosity in the 170 or so North guys that are affected by it. We'll see what happens.
As you may know, parity was passed unanimously by the DAL-N LEC's. When it made it through the channels up to the MEC it died. Apparently it doesn't affect enough people (170 ish) to warrant a change. Keep in mind that it only affects those junior to the 12 year pay point. I agree that it's crap! Those of us that are affected by it are getting screwed twice, both by the lower pay rate for two months out of the year as well as the lower DC contribution until 2012. Is it fair? I would say no. But the argument was made that we got other enhancements that offset the negatives (higher payrates and a DC plan).
When I 1st started the debate on here I made the comment that I would not vote for a new contract that didn't fix this clause. But, after listening to the other side of the argument, I do now see both sides. I am still conflicted about it, but I do understand the logic from the MEC (eventhough I don't like it). While I agree with (I believe it was) Forgot to Bid that it's not really a "B" scale, it does create animosity in the 170 or so North guys that are affected by it. We'll see what happens.
I hope it gets fixed, thanks for letting us know.
Ftb The Last MD88 Air Bender
03-11-2010, 09:39 AM
ATL A320 B
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: No longer MEM or 9, but still a guy.
Posts: 238
My earlier post was not meant to attack anything. I just wanted to point out that a "YES" vote on a contract does not mean that you agree with everything in it. It simply means that given the circumstances, you feel that it is better to take what's on the table vs continuing the negotiating process.
It is a shallow rebuttal at most to answer someones complaint of a specific area of our PWA by saying "but you voted yes."
It is a shallow rebuttal at most to answer someones complaint of a specific area of our PWA by saying "but you voted yes."
Last edited by Mem9guy; 03-11-2010 at 12:46 PM.
03-11-2010, 09:58 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Even if that happened, which I agree is a possibility, the resulting contract would have to be ratified by 50.1%. The question is are there that many in our group who would go for such a sellout?
Notwithstanding Keenster and Nu's proclamations to the contrary, I fear there is a real possibility of that happening.
Notwithstanding Keenster and Nu's proclamations to the contrary, I fear there is a real possibility of that happening.
No PWA will get my vote if it gives up one iota of flying. (Yes even for a 500% pay raise, as it will be taken in the next CH11 round but the loss of flying will remain)
03-11-2010, 10:01 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I would hope that by 2011-2012 more than 50.1% will know not to accept it and 0% of the reps accept it. What we need is more bonehead announcements like Bombardier made when RAH bout it's C-Series to get people to understand what's going on.
Also, AMR is supposedly in talks with Embraer on the E19X and if they order it for mainline, for our sake I hope they order it.
Also, AMR is supposedly in talks with Embraer on the E19X and if they order it for mainline, for our sake I hope they order it.
I do agree that the flying will come to mainline, but it will take a staring contest like no other.
03-11-2010, 10:02 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Mem, what's a synonym for "Roger? I don't want to use the word Roger but it's the only word I can think of. Let me just reiterate: 1) it isn't right especially moving forward long term, 2) it should be changed, 3) I believe most everyone supports changing it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
