Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-15-2012, 11:21 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
This is a great illustration of what I also discussed with these three reps. After they gave me their current positions on how they would vote for a TA that contained such provisions, I asked them about how they would handle the pressure from the MEC administrators if they voted NO. They each relayed specific and personal examples of it in their careers in DALPA. One was exactly what 76drvr states here. It was: "If you vote NO on this, you'll be showing disunity amongst the MEC and that will damage us in the eyes of management. They will exploit any weakness that is perceived amongst the MEC. Plus, how can you turn your back on the negotiators after you voted each and every one of them in?" The MEC bureaucrats and 76drvr believe that a rep must back the negotiators.
Another example was one of having the "big arm" put around you. Example: LEC rep of a small base that is constantly under threat of being closed is told, "Don't worry man. Show us some unity here on the MEC and we'll make sure your guys (and you) are well taken care of when the company decides to pull the trigger and close your base." This rep told me that he replied: "I'll demand you do everything for my guys regardless of how I vote on anything."
Sorry for being too wordy, but it's just so illustrative of the different pressures our LEC reps are under. They have the pressure from us members, then there's the pressure from the MEC bureaucrats as so well stated by 76drvr.
Carl
Another example was one of having the "big arm" put around you. Example: LEC rep of a small base that is constantly under threat of being closed is told, "Don't worry man. Show us some unity here on the MEC and we'll make sure your guys (and you) are well taken care of when the company decides to pull the trigger and close your base." This rep told me that he replied: "I'll demand you do everything for my guys regardless of how I vote on anything."
Sorry for being too wordy, but it's just so illustrative of the different pressures our LEC reps are under. They have the pressure from us members, then there's the pressure from the MEC bureaucrats as so well stated by 76drvr.
Carl
04-15-2012, 11:27 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Anderson prefers to have experienced Delta pilots up front per his brief at the Aviation summit. He needs to be held to that statement.
04-15-2012, 11:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Not to mention more large RJ's have NOTHING to do with DL getting 717's.
Nice try scope gutters, but we'll take traditional section 6 is this is your idea of "opportunity".
04-15-2012, 11:30 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
I was responding to Free Bird, who wanted the reps to publicly disclose their position during negotiations. I believe there are possibly too many issues at play for that type of public statement and that most reps wouldn't make public statements during negotiations. Sorry for the confusion.
04-15-2012, 11:32 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl, that's a lot of conspiracy theorizing. It's really quite simple. Some reps made a big fuss about their desire not to have a negotiator election. They were on the forum and in their own council communiques politicking against having a negotiator election. That wasn't the administration, that was a few councils. They wanted these guys bad and vouched for them. They even called for a special MEC meeting, which we all had to pay for, in order to thwart any attempt to hold elections. It's really just a side bar issue. I'm curious to see if the same reps who vouched for our negotiators will support what the negotiators produce.
But your previous statement is exactly what the MEC does quite routinely. Specifically, pressure our reps to "back the negotiators" or "show unity", rather than vote the will of their members. Your post was a perfect example.
Carl
04-15-2012, 11:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
04-15-2012, 11:36 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Not only that, but there is no such thing as language "airtight" enough to insure they would be permanent growth as well as guarantee a "snapback" of RJ's. The company would squeal that they entered into long term contracts with trillion dollar penalties for breaking them, etc, just like they are doing now in claims that they "need" more large RJ's.
Not to mention more large RJ's have NOTHING to do with DL getting 717's.
Nice try scope gutters, but we'll take traditional section 6 is this is your idea of "opportunity".
Not to mention more large RJ's have NOTHING to do with DL getting 717's.
Nice try scope gutters, but we'll take traditional section 6 is this is your idea of "opportunity".
Carl
04-15-2012, 11:38 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I was responding to Free Bird, who wanted the reps to publicly disclose their position during negotiations. I believe there are possibly too many issues at play for that type of public statement and that most reps wouldn't make public statements during negotiations. Sorry for the confusion.
Carl
04-15-2012, 11:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
They are not related. Not even a littl bit. The company is figuring why not ask them to continue to make the same mistake they consistently make. Why wouldn't they ask?
But the realistic monetary "savings" of 35-50 (which means 50) large RJ's prostituted out to the back stabbers and ace dealers of the industry are almost nothing compared to operating those 35-50 large RJ's at mainline...or at least with mainline pilots.
The possible deal for 88-100 or so B717's is a much, much larger deal that dwarfs the fuzzy accounting "savings" of operating them at the cut throat low ballers. Even a $100/hr pilot differential monetized over the CASM is so laughably insignificant that there is no way a large, super sweet deal on B717's which the company envisions a use for would have anything realistically to do with "needing" the pilot cost savings from another few dozen large RJ's.
If they try and make the claim that this is about some fake phony accounting sorcery to "get the leases off the books" of the large RJ's they want, our response should be "cool story, bro, but we're flying them under our contract...PERIOD!"
If they ask, they are just asking because they can. Outsourcing is a religion to them and its times like these that they go to church and pray the hardest.
But the realistic monetary "savings" of 35-50 (which means 50) large RJ's prostituted out to the back stabbers and ace dealers of the industry are almost nothing compared to operating those 35-50 large RJ's at mainline...or at least with mainline pilots.
The possible deal for 88-100 or so B717's is a much, much larger deal that dwarfs the fuzzy accounting "savings" of operating them at the cut throat low ballers. Even a $100/hr pilot differential monetized over the CASM is so laughably insignificant that there is no way a large, super sweet deal on B717's which the company envisions a use for would have anything realistically to do with "needing" the pilot cost savings from another few dozen large RJ's.
If they try and make the claim that this is about some fake phony accounting sorcery to "get the leases off the books" of the large RJ's they want, our response should be "cool story, bro, but we're flying them under our contract...PERIOD!"
If they ask, they are just asking because they can. Outsourcing is a religion to them and its times like these that they go to church and pray the hardest.
04-15-2012, 11:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Carl, that's a lot of conspiracy theorizing. It's really quite simple. Some reps made a big fuss about their desire not to have a negotiator election. They were on the forum and in their own council communiques politicking against having a negotiator election. That wasn't the administration, that was a few councils. They wanted these guys bad and vouched for them. They even called for a special MEC meeting, which we all had to pay for, in order to thwart any attempt to hold elections. It's really just a side bar issue. I'm curious to see if the same reps who vouched for our negotiators will support what the negotiators produce.
If they bring us something like that and then threaten "well we'll quit and you'll have to start from scratch" then let them quit, go back to the line under our current book like the rest of us and we'll start over and do it right.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
