Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-25-2012, 07:23 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
What's the benefit of having the union put out Pro/Con papers?
They negotiate the deal they think we want. As we discussed above, they usually sell the deal. They wouldn't necessarily be objective in putting out Pro/Con positions. Why ask them to go through some sort of shyzofrenic exercise and be two things at once?
This board is a Pro/Con paper.
They negotiate the deal they think we want. As we discussed above, they usually sell the deal. They wouldn't necessarily be objective in putting out Pro/Con positions. Why ask them to go through some sort of shyzofrenic exercise and be two things at once?
This board is a Pro/Con paper.
Thats the point - they were very objective. We can easily continue to make them objective by having people advocating a "No" vote write the "Con" portion.
Scoop
04-25-2012, 07:26 AM
Senior by choice
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 427
Sailing,
I agree that DALPA puts out a lot of information and has been getting better at this over the years.
One area that has not improved is the lack of a dedicated "Pro and Con" point paper.
I believe DALPA used to do them, then when they stopped a highly motivated Line Pilot stepped in and did it.
I am hoping DALPA will reinstate the Pro and Con point papers as it is the easiest and fastest way for the line Pilot to get a good feel for all the contract issues.
Scoop
I agree that DALPA puts out a lot of information and has been getting better at this over the years.
One area that has not improved is the lack of a dedicated "Pro and Con" point paper.
I believe DALPA used to do them, then when they stopped a highly motivated Line Pilot stepped in and did it.I am hoping DALPA will reinstate the Pro and Con point papers as it is the easiest and fastest way for the line Pilot to get a good feel for all the contract issues.
Scoop
04-25-2012, 07:27 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I'll agree to that last as well: I'm often surprised by the weakness in some of the language. For example, was I ever surprised when we tested the NFC in C2K with my very own job!
I suspect it's like any deal you negotiate: the true value of terms isn't always completely apparent until years later. I bought an extended warranty on our minivan. It's going to take a long while to tell if it was a good deal, or not.
So any contract has a bunch of fluff, items that are theoretically a huge improvement, based on the cliffnotes, assuming the economic environment and company finances hold up. But when a true test-to-press occurs, some work as intended, some do not. Some of these are better viewed as a weak insurance policy, than an iron-clad guarantee. I don't think this is a product of who negotiates. I think we have the appropriate professionals in the room. And even a Jerry Maguire would negotiate a bunch of fluff, to see what sticks.
Which is what makes it critically important to:
1) Have simple, clear, strong language in the most essential clauses.
2) Be informed, and involved, and not distracted by noise and/or any selling.
3) Compare the end product to your own initial requirements.
4) Ask questions, but be critical. Lean towards basing your consideration of a particular section on what it says, not an explanation of how it "should work".
5) Accept the fact that some of what you're getting is fluff, and learn to assign a value to that fluff based on the probability it will work out, not a certainty.
I suspect it's like any deal you negotiate: the true value of terms isn't always completely apparent until years later. I bought an extended warranty on our minivan. It's going to take a long while to tell if it was a good deal, or not.
So any contract has a bunch of fluff, items that are theoretically a huge improvement, based on the cliffnotes, assuming the economic environment and company finances hold up. But when a true test-to-press occurs, some work as intended, some do not. Some of these are better viewed as a weak insurance policy, than an iron-clad guarantee. I don't think this is a product of who negotiates. I think we have the appropriate professionals in the room. And even a Jerry Maguire would negotiate a bunch of fluff, to see what sticks.
Which is what makes it critically important to:
1) Have simple, clear, strong language in the most essential clauses.
2) Be informed, and involved, and not distracted by noise and/or any selling.
3) Compare the end product to your own initial requirements.
4) Ask questions, but be critical. Lean towards basing your consideration of a particular section on what it says, not an explanation of how it "should work".
5) Accept the fact that some of what you're getting is fluff, and learn to assign a value to that fluff based on the probability it will work out, not a certainty.
To tag on. This is where UPS pilots get it right IMO. They video the company and the union reps going through the contract with:
Union: "This is what this paragraph means. Do you agree that this is what it means?
Company: "Yes" or "no, this is how we interpret it..."
All on video so there can be no after the fact disagreements.
That said, there are good reasons on both sides of the table why you wouldn't want that. On the union side there is pilot job protection. On the company side there is operational flexibility.
Personally, I have pretty high expectations for this contract. I am also optimistic that it will be concluded by June.
04-25-2012, 07:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
What's the benefit of having the union put out Pro/Con papers?
They negotiate the deal they think we want. As we discussed above, they usually sell the deal. They wouldn't necessarily be objective in putting out Pro/Con positions. Why ask them to go through some sort of shyzofrenic exercise and be two things at once?
This board is a Pro/Con paper.
They negotiate the deal they think we want. As we discussed above, they usually sell the deal. They wouldn't necessarily be objective in putting out Pro/Con positions. Why ask them to go through some sort of shyzofrenic exercise and be two things at once?
This board is a Pro/Con paper.
But, I was also thinking about this and how to put it out to the membership.
The only way I could think would be to put out:
- Here is what we agreed to
- Here is what you said on your survey that we were unable to achieve (for whatever reason)
Then I guess, one could decide if the deal was good "overall" of if what was unable to be achieved was across one's individual line in the sand.
Oh, and yes, read APC
Ferd
04-25-2012, 07:29 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Scoop,
So you take a group that agreed to pass something to the membership, and expose the differences of opinions within? I don't think that's smart.
So you take a group that agreed to pass something to the membership, and expose the differences of opinions within? I don't think that's smart.
Last edited by Sink r8; 04-25-2012 at 07:45 AM.
04-25-2012, 07:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
04-25-2012, 07:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
To tag on. This is where UPS pilots get it right IMO. They video the company and the union reps going through the contract with:
Union: "This is what this paragraph means. Do you agree that this is what it means?
Company: "Yes" or "no, this is how we interpret it..."
All on video so there can be no after the fact disagreements.
Union: "This is what this paragraph means. Do you agree that this is what it means?
Company: "Yes" or "no, this is how we interpret it..."
All on video so there can be no after the fact disagreements.
I think the potential timeline of this contract could make it tough, but I'm a big fan of simplified language. I'd like to see us get to a strong contract, with about 40% less language.
We could have a contract that doesn't require an interpreter, a thesaurus, and a magnifying lens. Makes it easier when Scheduling calls, and you can say: it says I will NOT, right here on page 4.
04-25-2012, 07:52 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
04-25-2012, 08:03 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
04-25-2012, 08:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Did you listen to the conference, ACL?
Gary was also marketed as someone who could answer questions. I'm not going to judge him on the basis of 1/2 an answer to a couple of questions, I was just saying I wasn't blown away.
BTW, I'm also an investor. I'm pretty sure Gary owes me a good impression. If Gary isn't here to "wow" me, he better be great at speaking with bankers on my behalf. In the meantime, it would be good form for a former analyst to handle analyst questions smoothly.
Remind me of job description, again? Something Investor Relations something?
Gary is now here to "wow" you with his words. He is here to "wow" prospective banks investors to give DAL unabridged access to capital.
BTW, I'm also an investor. I'm pretty sure Gary owes me a good impression. If Gary isn't here to "wow" me, he better be great at speaking with bankers on my behalf. In the meantime, it would be good form for a former analyst to handle analyst questions smoothly.
Remind me of job description, again? Something Investor Relations something?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
