Details on Delta TA
09-04-2014, 10:39 AM
#1461
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
They invented $25 bag fees out of thin air and have no problem collecting them. They're running a multi-billion dollar corporation, and running it so well they're making literally billions in profits. I think they're talented enough to find a way to net $3 to $4 more per passenger in order to stop paying the pilots as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy.
You're stuck in the past, Alfa. Lost in the spreadsheets with no real sense of what's right and of the real value this pilot group brings to the table.
09-04-2014, 10:42 AM
#1462
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Also, your premise is flawed by the claim that the only other concessions were manpower concessions. Manpower is not affected by items like allowing 70 additional 76 seat RJ's, sick leave harassment policies, adding additional days of short call, increasing health care premiums, etc.
Show us the cost of contractual value added...in dollars, then show us the cost of contractual concessions...in dollars.
Thank you.
Carl
09-04-2014, 10:44 AM
#1463
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider them. We're not given go opportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it?
Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A?
Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B?
Do you not want to go down this path?
You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement.
This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65.
This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over.
I expected much better.
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it?
Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A?
Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B?
Do you not want to go down this path?
You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement.
This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65.
This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over.
I expected much better.
It means they think you're stupid.
09-04-2014, 10:45 AM
#1464
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider it. We're not given cleanopportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it?
Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A?
Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B?
Do you not want to go down this path?
You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement.
This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65.
This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over.
I expected much better.
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it?
Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A?
Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B?
Do you not want to go down this path?
You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement.
This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65.
This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over.
I expected much better.
09-04-2014, 10:54 AM
#1465
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
With something that's clearly as controversial as CDO's, you do it with a yes or no question. One question. Up or down. Simple.
09-04-2014, 10:58 AM
#1466
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I don't like to gratuitously criticize the work of others, but in this case I have to agree with you. I felt that I was being taken for a moron.
One of the questions that always has everyone foaming at the mouth is % pay increases. While there is a good question at the very end asking what our total cost increase should be, the questions on pay increases only address the initial increase, and only in the context of TVM.
It seems to me we used to be asked what we wanted to see throughout the contract. I understand that the timing of the initial increase matters, but then again, it's not just the initial increase that tells the story.
For example, I think 12% is a good initial number, but only if it's something like 12/8/8/7 AND the other sections are strengthened substantially. 12/5/5/5, not good enough. 12/0/0/0... DOA.
So even on this most basic of points of gauging pay expectations, the survey fails.
One of the questions that always has everyone foaming at the mouth is % pay increases. While there is a good question at the very end asking what our total cost increase should be, the questions on pay increases only address the initial increase, and only in the context of TVM.
It seems to me we used to be asked what we wanted to see throughout the contract. I understand that the timing of the initial increase matters, but then again, it's not just the initial increase that tells the story.
For example, I think 12% is a good initial number, but only if it's something like 12/8/8/7 AND the other sections are strengthened substantially. 12/5/5/5, not good enough. 12/0/0/0... DOA.
So even on this most basic of points of gauging pay expectations, the survey fails.
09-04-2014, 10:59 AM
#1467
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. The survey asked under what circumstance, if any, would CDOs be acceptable. It's a straightforward question to which I gave a straightforward answer -- NO.
09-04-2014, 11:00 AM
#1468
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
09-04-2014, 11:03 AM
#1469
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider it. We're not given cleanopportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it?
Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A?
Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B?
Do you not want to go down this path?
You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement.
This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65.
This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over.
I expected much better.
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it?
Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A?
Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B?
Do you not want to go down this path?
You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement.
This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65.
This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over.
I expected much better.
Why would we put concessions in our survey?
It's a done deal.
09-04-2014, 11:10 AM
#1470
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Then give a simple yes/no to all the concessionary items being presented. You do NOT give people several options to say yes to a concession, and only one way to say "no", and one way to be unsure. If a majority says no to CDO's, for example, you stop there, and you don't consider the follow-up question on how exactly they should be implemented.
You do NOT ask people to rank in order of priority something they already said they don't want to do. That is the height of hypocrisy. Several times, I was ask to give a priority number to one or several items I absolutely don't want to see implemented. If I didn't want to do D and E, I still was asked to rank them next A, B, and C, which I did favor. So the survey puts my priorities down as A, B, C, D, then E! How nice...
So you can shorten the survey be eliminating these false choices.
The survey doesn't need to be longer to be accurate, it just needs to be better written to gauge sentiment in a neural manner.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
