Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
#9033
Hey all,
I was able to attend the meeting, although have been very busy with recurrent and a bunch of other things going on.
I stayed for the entire meeting- I walked away with a bit of a different feeling than some others.
My personal feelings for most things is that tin hats get very itchy after a very short period of time- so I'm much more of a fact based person and skeptical of things I haven't seen proof.
That being said, here is what I walked away from the meeting with:
The union seemed to be a bit on the defensive, or at least on a bit of an appeasement run with the scope presentation and scope "status" presentation.
The "lack of understanding" of the way the CPZ flowback will work rubbed me the wrong way a bit- I don't particularly care if we publish our specific actions and stance on it, although I want to know they have a well laid out game plan. It's not like the guy that wrote the LOA isn't a phone call away...
The history presentation overall was good, although I felt it was pure fallacy saying the rise of the larger RJs had little to do with mainline replacement. Also, I believe a bit of research on the NWA scope history would behoove the presentation as well (with THEIR input, not a deltoid centric point of view... we have two different histories at the airline now and have to deal with that... the cultures simply do not meld together overnight and bring two different viewpoints).
The first part of the scope status was done quite well, although the presenter (lead negotiator) was obviously annoyed and unhappy about being tasked to make this presentation. A lot of extraneous and non pertinent information was included (2006/2007 NWA/DAL/COA code share data... ***?)... it seemed as a ploy to try to just throw numbers our way to appease the "scope" crowd.
I brought up the EMB-175 issue, which seemed to raise at least one guy's temper that is in leadership in the LEC- his name escapes me, but his response certainly didn't command any sort of respect (not one of the "leaders, some sort of rep that was sitting near the front). They want a smoking gun, but don't seem to have the effort to make any legwork on it.. or want it handed to them. I've got some paperwork on the subject, and we're waiting on more detailed info to come in.... we'll see.
The resolution was reworded to say "periodic" scope briefings and passed with only one nay vote (ironically the lead negotiator...)
I walked away with the feeling that we are beginning to move in the right direction, albeit the disease is far from cured. The union is doing a great job in a lot of areas (Scrappy's presentation on PBS was exceptional, and the job those guys do is always great- same with the training guys), but scope (top and bottom) is a huge issue here.
What we are witnessing is a change in culture in the airline from the old school to the new where a large portion of the pilots have been very negatively affected by years of scope neglect and creep. I personally believe I saw the beginning of the change yesterday.... and it's certainly nowhere near over.
Overall, kudos to the LEC reps for the work, support (they did seem much more open and supporting this time) and crowd wrangling.... kudos to Mondo for the resolution and the support.... and here's to some good change in the future for the positive.
I was able to attend the meeting, although have been very busy with recurrent and a bunch of other things going on.
I stayed for the entire meeting- I walked away with a bit of a different feeling than some others.
My personal feelings for most things is that tin hats get very itchy after a very short period of time- so I'm much more of a fact based person and skeptical of things I haven't seen proof.
That being said, here is what I walked away from the meeting with:
The union seemed to be a bit on the defensive, or at least on a bit of an appeasement run with the scope presentation and scope "status" presentation.
The "lack of understanding" of the way the CPZ flowback will work rubbed me the wrong way a bit- I don't particularly care if we publish our specific actions and stance on it, although I want to know they have a well laid out game plan. It's not like the guy that wrote the LOA isn't a phone call away...
The history presentation overall was good, although I felt it was pure fallacy saying the rise of the larger RJs had little to do with mainline replacement. Also, I believe a bit of research on the NWA scope history would behoove the presentation as well (with THEIR input, not a deltoid centric point of view... we have two different histories at the airline now and have to deal with that... the cultures simply do not meld together overnight and bring two different viewpoints).
The first part of the scope status was done quite well, although the presenter (lead negotiator) was obviously annoyed and unhappy about being tasked to make this presentation. A lot of extraneous and non pertinent information was included (2006/2007 NWA/DAL/COA code share data... ***?)... it seemed as a ploy to try to just throw numbers our way to appease the "scope" crowd.
I brought up the EMB-175 issue, which seemed to raise at least one guy's temper that is in leadership in the LEC- his name escapes me, but his response certainly didn't command any sort of respect (not one of the "leaders, some sort of rep that was sitting near the front). They want a smoking gun, but don't seem to have the effort to make any legwork on it.. or want it handed to them. I've got some paperwork on the subject, and we're waiting on more detailed info to come in.... we'll see.
The resolution was reworded to say "periodic" scope briefings and passed with only one nay vote (ironically the lead negotiator...)
I walked away with the feeling that we are beginning to move in the right direction, albeit the disease is far from cured. The union is doing a great job in a lot of areas (Scrappy's presentation on PBS was exceptional, and the job those guys do is always great- same with the training guys), but scope (top and bottom) is a huge issue here.
What we are witnessing is a change in culture in the airline from the old school to the new where a large portion of the pilots have been very negatively affected by years of scope neglect and creep. I personally believe I saw the beginning of the change yesterday.... and it's certainly nowhere near over.
Overall, kudos to the LEC reps for the work, support (they did seem much more open and supporting this time) and crowd wrangling.... kudos to Mondo for the resolution and the support.... and here's to some good change in the future for the positive.
#9034
My guess would be that mama DAL is saving her pennies for the ALK bidding war...but be that as it may...
It has been an under-the-table goal of RAs marketing team that EVERYTHING smaller than a 757 is to be outsourced to the lowest bidder. Even the domestic 757 would be pared back to a dozen or so core markets. In essence, it would look like the 1982 version of Northwest Orient, where the smallest thing was a 727, and then only a handful, feeding the whales (and we remember how well that worked for PanAM).
EVERYTHING else would be outsourced. EVERYTHING...that includes DC-9s, MD-80s, A319/320s and most 757 flying. I've had people try to convince me that this is a good thing, which is suspiciously along the lines of the current MECs direction.
The RAH+Frontier+Midwest combination may just be the first shot in this salvo (um, hello? 717ss and A320s!). Having ALPA lawyers at the 44 meeting say they can't do anything about this and that a MEH codeshare is already in place is chilling.
Even if we got rid DALPA now, the damage may already be done.
Nu
It has been an under-the-table goal of RAs marketing team that EVERYTHING smaller than a 757 is to be outsourced to the lowest bidder. Even the domestic 757 would be pared back to a dozen or so core markets. In essence, it would look like the 1982 version of Northwest Orient, where the smallest thing was a 727, and then only a handful, feeding the whales (and we remember how well that worked for PanAM).
EVERYTHING else would be outsourced. EVERYTHING...that includes DC-9s, MD-80s, A319/320s and most 757 flying. I've had people try to convince me that this is a good thing, which is suspiciously along the lines of the current MECs direction.
The RAH+Frontier+Midwest combination may just be the first shot in this salvo (um, hello? 717ss and A320s!). Having ALPA lawyers at the 44 meeting say they can't do anything about this and that a MEH codeshare is already in place is chilling.
Even if we got rid DALPA now, the damage may already be done.
Nu
#9036
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: west coast wannabe
Posts: 815
The history presentation overall was good, although I felt it was pure fallacy saying the rise of the larger RJs had little to do with mainline replacement. Also, I believe a bit of research on the NWA scope history would behoove the presentation as well (with THEIR input, not a deltoid centric point of view... we have two different histories at the airline now and have to deal with that... the cultures simply do not meld together overnight and bring two different viewpoints).
good to see you, hope more of our pinchnickel brothers join in this fight.
#9037
Hey all,
The "lack of understanding" of the way the CPZ flowback will work rubbed me the wrong way a bit- I don't particularly care if we publish our specific actions and stance on it, although I want to know they have a well laid out game plan. It's not like the guy that wrote the LOA isn't a phone call away...
I brought up the EMB-175 issue, which seemed to raise at least one guy's temper that is in leadership in the LEC- his name escapes me, but his response certainly didn't command any sort of respect (not one of the "leaders, some sort of rep that was sitting near the front). They want a smoking gun, but don't seem to have the effort to make any legwork on it.. or want it handed to them. I've got some paperwork on the subject, and we're waiting on more detailed info to come in.... we'll see.
The "lack of understanding" of the way the CPZ flowback will work rubbed me the wrong way a bit- I don't particularly care if we publish our specific actions and stance on it, although I want to know they have a well laid out game plan. It's not like the guy that wrote the LOA isn't a phone call away...
I brought up the EMB-175 issue, which seemed to raise at least one guy's temper that is in leadership in the LEC- his name escapes me, but his response certainly didn't command any sort of respect (not one of the "leaders, some sort of rep that was sitting near the front). They want a smoking gun, but don't seem to have the effort to make any legwork on it.. or want it handed to them. I've got some paperwork on the subject, and we're waiting on more detailed info to come in.... we'll see.
Again, thanks to Armando for his efforts. And to all the "junior" guys there, very well spoken and professional, well done!!!
#9038
I find it chilling that they didn't even seem compelled to look into the issue further? Almost like they really don't want to rock the boat.
#9039
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
They've had steady contract increases. We've had booms and busts. I think getting $300 per hour for a few years, followed by years of $170 per hour is stupid. Who can plan a family's future with that type of volatility. I think LUV and UPS have done a great job with their in-house unions. Clearly, you disagree.
No such implication was made. My direct assertion is that a large union whose efforts and finances are TOTALLY devoted to what is good for the pilots of Delta Air Lines is why we should change to in-house. I assert that this would make our union represent the interests of its pilots - not "educate" pilots as to the opinions of the pilot's representatives. I also think that will produce superior contracts.
Carl
No such implication was made. My direct assertion is that a large union whose efforts and finances are TOTALLY devoted to what is good for the pilots of Delta Air Lines is why we should change to in-house. I assert that this would make our union represent the interests of its pilots - not "educate" pilots as to the opinions of the pilot's representatives. I also think that will produce superior contracts.
Carl
For those who disagree about an in-house union, I have one question. Do you think we would have the same stance on scope if we had an in-house union right now? I think we would have a stance similar to APA, which in my opinion is the right stance. Yes they have made some bad decisions as a union, (who hasn't), but I have no doubt in my mind who APA is representing, American Airline Pilots! I can't say the same for DALPA.
Frats,
Dawgs
#9040
You assume that the did not have a understanding. One thing I know is that our union leaders are anything but stupid. Admitting to a knowledge of anything means that "Intent" and "Interpretation" can be used against them in a court of law, an arbitration etc. Sometime it makes a lot of sense to play stupid even if it makes you look like a fool.
Especially in this time where there is a lot going on, it makes even more sense to not tip you had. You may not agree with their stance on an issue, but they are very smart and very calculated, so give them credit for that.
Especially in this time where there is a lot going on, it makes even more sense to not tip you had. You may not agree with their stance on an issue, but they are very smart and very calculated, so give them credit for that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post