Details on Delta TA
07-28-2014, 01:21 PM
#211
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
There is not one rep who for the TA who did not go out and actively support its approval.
I know you think this is an explanation, but this is just a made up story, existing only in your mind. If the reps felt that they had a better path to more money they should have voted no. This whole no-win situation is just baloney made up by you. We won an additional $1 billion in contract value and the MEC and the pilots agreed by a large margin. You keep trying to make up stories about why all these people are too weak minded to make their own decisions but it doesn't fly. Just like all your DPA junk you spouted off here for years; no one bought it. Just like your stupid reasons why you voted no; no one bought it. Somewhere in that bitter little world you live in you think you are making points but instead you are just showing your ignorance with made up propaganda.
Once again, you ignore what the policy manual says and what has been the practice at Delta for years and years. Being a rep means you have to make hard decisions. One of those decisions is looking at a TA that doesn't satisfy all your goals. That will happen every time you negotiate. If the reps couldn't make those decisions then they should have stepped down. Instead, they made the decisions, they supported their decision, and the pilots agree with them. In fact, in each base where a rep voted no, the majority of their pilots disagreed with them and voted for the TA. So who was really representing the bottom up majority? All the rest is just ex-post facto made up hoohah by you and the minority who want to exercise their will above the majority. No one is buying it.
I know you think this is an explanation, but this is just a made up story, existing only in your mind. If the reps felt that they had a better path to more money they should have voted no. This whole no-win situation is just baloney made up by you. We won an additional $1 billion in contract value and the MEC and the pilots agreed by a large margin. You keep trying to make up stories about why all these people are too weak minded to make their own decisions but it doesn't fly. Just like all your DPA junk you spouted off here for years; no one bought it. Just like your stupid reasons why you voted no; no one bought it. Somewhere in that bitter little world you live in you think you are making points but instead you are just showing your ignorance with made up propaganda.
Once again, you ignore what the policy manual says and what has been the practice at Delta for years and years. Being a rep means you have to make hard decisions. One of those decisions is looking at a TA that doesn't satisfy all your goals. That will happen every time you negotiate. If the reps couldn't make those decisions then they should have stepped down. Instead, they made the decisions, they supported their decision, and the pilots agree with them. In fact, in each base where a rep voted no, the majority of their pilots disagreed with them and voted for the TA. So who was really representing the bottom up majority? All the rest is just ex-post facto made up hoohah by you and the minority who want to exercise their will above the majority. No one is buying it.
Carl
07-28-2014, 01:28 PM
#212
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
did not....
did too...
did not...
did too...
well then what am I?
I really do love the debate on here sometimes. That's what keeps me coming back to this flea infested pit... but then there are other times...
did too...
did not...
did too...
well then what am I?
I really do love the debate on here sometimes. That's what keeps me coming back to this flea infested pit... but then there are other times...
07-28-2014, 01:46 PM
#213
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
07-28-2014, 02:59 PM
#214
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Denny, Scambo, DAL88, and gzsg,
Great thoughts from the group, and it's significant that "more percentage" in the 401k isn't as big a thing to the group (not that we wouldn't still like it)since the rising rates and 415c limit is a factor for a number of captains (I'd like it to be a factor for FO's too!).
With higher rates that multiply onto W2's it will do the work needed like DAL88 says. Would a 16-18%? 401k count toward the goal of "rates" restoration in the future then or not? It is another way to hide it from other employee groups, yet like Denny says it is just another line of his taxable income once the 415c limit is reached that is part of our W2's.
My math says 18.25% above 2015 to equal 2004 rates (for 7ERB).
As a purely hypothetical example let's say we somehow do something similar to C12 (but in a better way!): 6.5% early/9.5% on amendable/ 4%/4% (with no PS change) and another 2% into the 401k... That is a combined raise on the amendable date of 18.95%, or does 401k play no role in the restoration for you?
(I'm not allowed to include any PS talk in the "restoration equation", thanks 80!
)
Would that meet one of your thresholds gzsg? (We need other stuff fixed, but this discussion is about Section 3 and 26)
Great thoughts from the group, and it's significant that "more percentage" in the 401k isn't as big a thing to the group (not that we wouldn't still like it)since the rising rates and 415c limit is a factor for a number of captains (I'd like it to be a factor for FO's too!).
With higher rates that multiply onto W2's it will do the work needed like DAL88 says. Would a 16-18%? 401k count toward the goal of "rates" restoration in the future then or not? It is another way to hide it from other employee groups, yet like Denny says it is just another line of his taxable income once the 415c limit is reached that is part of our W2's.
My math says 18.25% above 2015 to equal 2004 rates (for 7ERB).
As a purely hypothetical example let's say we somehow do something similar to C12 (but in a better way!): 6.5% early/9.5% on amendable/ 4%/4% (with no PS change) and another 2% into the 401k... That is a combined raise on the amendable date of 18.95%, or does 401k play no role in the restoration for you?
(I'm not allowed to include any PS talk in the "restoration equation", thanks 80!
)Would that meet one of your thresholds gzsg? (We need other stuff fixed, but this discussion is about Section 3 and 26)
07-28-2014, 03:51 PM
#215
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
With higher rates that multiply onto W2's it will do the work needed like DAL88 says. Would a 16-18%? 401k count toward the goal of "rates" restoration in the future then or not? It is another way to hide it from other employee groups, yet like Denny says it is just another line of his taxable income once the 415c limit is reached that is part of our W2's.
My math says 18.25% above 2015 to equal 2004 rates (for 7ERB).
As a purely hypothetical example let's say we somehow do something similar to C12 (but in a better way!): 6.5% early/9.5% on amendable/ 4%/4% (with no PS change) and another 2% into the 401k... That is a combined raise on the amendable date of 18.95%, or does 401k play no role in the restoration for you?
As a purely hypothetical example let's say we somehow do something similar to C12 (but in a better way!): 6.5% early/9.5% on amendable/ 4%/4% (with no PS change) and another 2% into the 401k... That is a combined raise on the amendable date of 18.95%, or does 401k play no role in the restoration for you?
And I don't think 4%/4% is quite enough. Not given the enormous sacrifices we've all made over the past decade and the fact that even your suggested "6.5% early/9.5% on amendable" still leaves us at approximately a 21% CUT in buying power over our 2004/C2K rates.
In other words, I could probably be persuaded to vote for full restoration of the actual 2004 rates (unadjusted for inflation) by day one but I need to see something that at least makes some decent progress towards restoring our buying power over the rest of the contract. 4% is barely ahead of published inflation and may not even be enough to keep up with the true increase in cost of living.
I'm encouraged that you're at least thinking along these lines, but I'm also jaded enough to be very skeptical that actual DALPA negotiators would open with something that would be enough to result in a negotiated result like you suggest.
As for the 401k... Again, I'd rather see the increase to the rates. I think our retirement setup is already very good and I am happy with it. Given the enormous sacrifice/loss in value with the termination of the pension, I don't mind seeing our retirement benefit increased. (More is always better, right?
) But I'd rather see it increased via a higher W2 resulting in more company contribution dollars going into the DPSP. I really do not care what the other employees think. That is completely irrelevant... they could have applied for a pilot position at Delta Air Lines if they were qualified and wanted the job and the responsibility.
07-28-2014, 05:02 PM
#216
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Work rules, vaca, and medical definitely need their own "time".... Maybe later, we are still 8 months from openers after all, and final survey guidance still has to be determined..... Participate in the upcoming webinars Aug. 4 and 6! <--- Shameless ALPA plug
I don't see any reason to "hide" anything from other employee groups. The other employee groups didn't take anything like the level of cuts we took. And they've made a lot more progress than we have toward restoration of the cuts they did take. I know Delta management loves to make us out to be the bad guys and pit the other employees against us (saw it first hand in BK), but I don't think we need to let that intimidate us. IMO it should not be a consideration for us.
I might agree to something like that (6.5% early/9.5% on amendable). You do realize that in order to achieve anything like that you would have to open higher, right?
And I don't think 4%/4% is quite enough. Not given the enormous sacrifices we've all made over the past decade and the fact that even your suggested "6.5% early/9.5% on amendable" still leaves us at approximately a 21% CUT in buying power over our 2004/C2K rates.
In other words, I could probably be persuaded to vote for full restoration of the actual 2004 rates (unadjusted for inflation) by day one but I need to see something that at least makes some decent progress towards restoring our buying power over the rest of the contract. 4% is barely ahead of published inflation and may not even be enough to keep up with the true increase in cost of living.
I'm encouraged that you're at least thinking along these lines, but I'm also jaded enough to be very skeptical that actual DALPA negotiators would open with something that would be enough to result in a negotiated result like you suggest.
As for the 401k... Again, I'd rather see the increase to the rates. I think our retirement setup is already very good and I am happy with it. Given the enormous sacrifice/loss in value with the termination of the pension, I don't mind seeing our retirement benefit increased. (More is always better, right?) But I'd rather see it increased via a higher W2 resulting in more company contribution dollars going into the DPSP. I really do not care what the other employees think. That is completely irrelevant... they could have applied for a pilot position at Delta Air Lines if they were qualified and wanted the job and the responsibility.
I might agree to something like that (6.5% early/9.5% on amendable). You do realize that in order to achieve anything like that you would have to open higher, right?
And I don't think 4%/4% is quite enough. Not given the enormous sacrifices we've all made over the past decade and the fact that even your suggested "6.5% early/9.5% on amendable" still leaves us at approximately a 21% CUT in buying power over our 2004/C2K rates.
In other words, I could probably be persuaded to vote for full restoration of the actual 2004 rates (unadjusted for inflation) by day one but I need to see something that at least makes some decent progress towards restoring our buying power over the rest of the contract. 4% is barely ahead of published inflation and may not even be enough to keep up with the true increase in cost of living.
I'm encouraged that you're at least thinking along these lines, but I'm also jaded enough to be very skeptical that actual DALPA negotiators would open with something that would be enough to result in a negotiated result like you suggest.
As for the 401k... Again, I'd rather see the increase to the rates. I think our retirement setup is already very good and I am happy with it. Given the enormous sacrifice/loss in value with the termination of the pension, I don't mind seeing our retirement benefit increased. (More is always better, right?
) But I'd rather see it increased via a higher W2 resulting in more company contribution dollars going into the DPSP. I really do not care what the other employees think. That is completely irrelevant... they could have applied for a pilot position at Delta Air Lines if they were qualified and wanted the job and the responsibility.Use their weak spot to exploit a gain for ourselves! It might cost $1.12 to get $1.00 of value for a per diem because of the Company desire to keep FA's in the same window, but instead, we ask for $1.10 worth of vacation for $1.00 because FA's won't see it. We end up with a 10% more value per dollar of negotiating leverage and the company saves $0.02 per dollar... Everyone wins....well everyone that is at the table anyway!
the 4/4 was merely a hypothetical, I think we are all smart enough to do the math and decide for ourselves (I want more), but you are right, you and the "pre-BK" generation have contributed dang near a 7 digit number to survival..... Time to compensate. A 14% PS plus a 1%/1% above avg. inflation would be a dent into that....At least I think so, Sorry 80!
It is really great to see a rational, friendly dialog on issues.... It's annoying to constantly see the T/Alan/Carl fights. I'm all for idea-based discussions, thank you gents!
07-28-2014, 05:16 PM
#217
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
It's just not correct Alan. I have personal knowledge of this. In Section 6 negotiations, you are held to account every step of the way for bad faith negotiations. Specifically, you cannot say later in negotiations that you now want a 50% pay raise even though you initially asked for only 25%. Conversely, management can't later say they want 50% pay cuts even though they only asked for a 25% pay cut initially. This can be tried occasionally when one side feels they have a leverage advantage in a strike, but you'll quickly get slapped by the NMB who will remind you that going backward from your opener is bad faith negotiations. Without a detailed opener, you'd never know that. It's why openers are a detailed exposition of what you want as the final contract.
That said, I don't see the issue with starting out with general proposals and following those up throughout the process with more specifics. The conceptual opener that we all saw stated that we were seeking to "significantly increase hourly rates of pay." How would it be considered bad faith negotiations to later put more flesh on those bones by proposing a specific amount?
07-28-2014, 07:06 PM
#218
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
The shadow MEC talking point is official.
Downturn in 2017. We have to get a quick deal that includes trading profit sharing for hourly increases (cost neutral) and pay banding/longer freezes.
Why an early deal?
It's raining so much money management can't hide it all. They want to cut all employees profit sharing ASAP. And that means pilots first.
They also are getting a much closer look at their training nightmare. Time for major concessions in pay banding/longer freezes.
If it doesn't cost jobs, why does management want it?
Please don't believe a word I wrote. Call the reps in Atlanta, captain in CVG, LAX and SLC.
Right now the talking point is the MEC hasn't discussed it. The question is have you discussed it with any of the usual suspects? The ones King fired. The ones who backdoored us on C2012.
Our economy is just getting started. This nonsense is another boogie man to rush us into another pathetic deal.
Downturn in 2017. We have to get a quick deal that includes trading profit sharing for hourly increases (cost neutral) and pay banding/longer freezes.
Why an early deal?
It's raining so much money management can't hide it all. They want to cut all employees profit sharing ASAP. And that means pilots first.
They also are getting a much closer look at their training nightmare. Time for major concessions in pay banding/longer freezes.
If it doesn't cost jobs, why does management want it?
Please don't believe a word I wrote. Call the reps in Atlanta, captain in CVG, LAX and SLC.
Right now the talking point is the MEC hasn't discussed it. The question is have you discussed it with any of the usual suspects? The ones King fired. The ones who backdoored us on C2012.
Our economy is just getting started. This nonsense is another boogie man to rush us into another pathetic deal.
07-28-2014, 07:21 PM
#219
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
The shadow MEC talking point is official.
Downturn in 2017. We have to get a quick deal that includes trading profit sharing for hourly increases (cost neutral) and pay banding/longer freezes.
Why an early deal?
It's raining so much money management can't hide it all. They want to cut all employees profit sharing ASAP. And that means pilots first.
They also are getting a much closer look at their training nightmare. Time for major concessions in pay banding/longer freezes.
If it doesn't cost jobs, why does management want it?
Please don't believe a word I wrote. Call the reps in Atlanta, captain in CVG, LAX and SLC.
Right now the talking point is the MEC hasn't discussed it. The question is have you discussed it with any of the usual suspects? The ones King fired. The ones who backdoored us on C2012.
Our economy is just getting started. This nonsense is another boogie man to rush us into another pathetic deal.
Downturn in 2017. We have to get a quick deal that includes trading profit sharing for hourly increases (cost neutral) and pay banding/longer freezes.
Why an early deal?
It's raining so much money management can't hide it all. They want to cut all employees profit sharing ASAP. And that means pilots first.
They also are getting a much closer look at their training nightmare. Time for major concessions in pay banding/longer freezes.
If it doesn't cost jobs, why does management want it?
Please don't believe a word I wrote. Call the reps in Atlanta, captain in CVG, LAX and SLC.
Right now the talking point is the MEC hasn't discussed it. The question is have you discussed it with any of the usual suspects? The ones King fired. The ones who backdoored us on C2012.
Our economy is just getting started. This nonsense is another boogie man to rush us into another pathetic deal.
07-28-2014, 08:40 PM
#220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 163
No scope relief..ever!! Bring all flying back to mainline. Buy the C-series and more 717's. If DCI collapses, bring their CRJ-900's and E175's to mainline and with each acft transfer offer 10 SSP's (or whatever the required manning # is for the acft) to bring their pilots to mainline..just like SWA is doing to the AT guys as they transfer AT 737's to the SWA side. We already have pay rates for the -900 and E190 and the mainline rates would be a great pay raise for former RJ drivers. The gradual transfer of hulls would allow a timely unraveling of the outsourcing debacle..which I think is in all of our best interests.
JMHO..
Sorry, I guess I didn't articulate very well. I agree 100% with Herc! I think it would be better for ALL of us if the 900 flying was brought under mainline. However if you guys choose to fight for that, just please try to include us. This group has been screwed and beat down drastically. We need something positive, and it may have to come from you.
Thanks again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
