Details on Delta TA
05-21-2015, 04:42 AM
#4451
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 181
First of all, this is NOT an equivalent of two years of normal paced negotiations. What we've done so far is about 4 or 5 months worth at a "normal" pace. It's about double the pace that's "normal." Which brings me to point two, which is: Why would that be the case? Our management team has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize costs. What fiduciary duty would our management team be pursuing by accelerating the pace of negotiations? Are they hurrying to increase pilot costs to the corporation? Or are they hurrying to decrease pilot costs to the corporation?
This is not even arguable it's so clear. Management is hurrying to decrease pilot costs to Delta. To do anything else would put them in fiduciary breach. What management is hurrying to prevent is almost immaterial. It's only important to understand that they're hurrying to REDUCE costs. That is leverage for us to pursue OUR goals with the TIMIMG being secondary.
Carl
This is not even arguable it's so clear. Management is hurrying to decrease pilot costs to Delta. To do anything else would put them in fiduciary breach. What management is hurrying to prevent is almost immaterial. It's only important to understand that they're hurrying to REDUCE costs. That is leverage for us to pursue OUR goals with the TIMIMG being secondary.
Carl
Carl,
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
2. They believe that in order to accomplish #1, they need to start with the pilots. (The other groups can be done without negotiating) The optics of cutting the non union profit sharing, without cutting the pilot's profit sharing, could be pretty ugly.
3. A contract that adds cost to the pilot group can be offset by the savings garnered from the rest of the employee's profit sharing reduction. Even though the rest of workers will probably see a pay increase, it can be sold in with smoke and mirrors to look like it's a net gain.
I don't see the company's desire to get a quick deal as an automatically bad deal for us.
05-21-2015, 05:07 AM
#4453
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Carl,
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
2. They believe that in order to accomplish #1, they need to start with the pilots. (The other groups can be done without negotiating) The optics of cutting the non union profit sharing, without cutting the pilot's profit sharing, could be pretty ugly.
3. A contract that adds cost to the pilot group can be offset by the savings garnered from the rest of the employee's profit sharing reduction. Even though the rest of workers will probably see a pay increase, it can be sold in with smoke and mirrors to look like it's a net gain.
I don't see the company's desire to get a quick deal as an automatically bad deal for us.
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
2. They believe that in order to accomplish #1, they need to start with the pilots. (The other groups can be done without negotiating) The optics of cutting the non union profit sharing, without cutting the pilot's profit sharing, could be pretty ugly.
3. A contract that adds cost to the pilot group can be offset by the savings garnered from the rest of the employee's profit sharing reduction. Even though the rest of workers will probably see a pay increase, it can be sold in with smoke and mirrors to look like it's a net gain.
I don't see the company's desire to get a quick deal as an automatically bad deal for us.
Would you agree that seeing our desire to delay passing a TA, until it's right, as not necessarily a bad deal for us either?
I'm not saying blow up the rat and start picketing. All I'm saying is that ensuring the pilot group gets a TA that can stand on it's own is more important than just meeting a timeline. Time is in our favor as the company is tied into paying 20% on every dollar earned above $2.5 billion PTIX. I have no doubt PS is in the crosshairs, and if the discussion to replace it with income is going to occur, it'll have to be a straight forward apples to apples comparison based on forecast PTIX over the contract term.
05-21-2015, 05:08 AM
#4454
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Our management team has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize costs. What fiduciary duty would our management team be pursuing by accelerating the pace of negotiations? Are they hurrying to increase pilot costs to the corporation? Or are they hurrying to decrease pilot costs to the corporation?
05-21-2015, 05:12 AM
#4455
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
Carl,
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
2. They believe that in order to accomplish #1, they need to start with the pilots. (The other groups can be done without negotiating) The optics of cutting the non union profit sharing, without cutting the pilot's profit sharing, could be pretty ugly.
3. A contract that adds cost to the pilot group can be offset by the savings garnered from the rest of the employee's profit sharing reduction. Even though the rest of workers will probably see a pay increase, it can be sold in with smoke and mirrors to look like it's a net gain.
I don't see the company's desire to get a quick deal as an automatically bad deal for us.
Maybe the company:
1. Wants to get profit sharing for all the help reduced.
2. They believe that in order to accomplish #1, they need to start with the pilots. (The other groups can be done without negotiating) The optics of cutting the non union profit sharing, without cutting the pilot's profit sharing, could be pretty ugly.
3. A contract that adds cost to the pilot group can be offset by the savings garnered from the rest of the employee's profit sharing reduction. Even though the rest of workers will probably see a pay increase, it can be sold in with smoke and mirrors to look like it's a net gain.
I don't see the company's desire to get a quick deal as an automatically bad deal for us.
05-21-2015, 05:32 AM
#4457
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
I'm a bit confused by the negotiating set up this time. First the company wants to open and negotiate early. For what? PR value? They had to know DALPA was gonna open high and had no need to hurry. They have to know this contract is gonna be expensive. Obviously they must want something. Sick leave---? how many true serial abusers exist and how much could they save? May be an irritant to the company, but seriously. A handful of senior F/Os bid with LCAs and leverage a good deal... out of almost 13,000. Those things sound like diversions. Productivity--they will always want more--no surprise there. Serious high value items: more RJ scope relief, Intl scope relief, changes to Profit Sharing. Any of these items are gonna cost DAL a ton if we yield at all. Now they go and flush $5 billion on stock buybacks? So they can claim poverty? If the company wants a quick deal it can be a form of leverage for us. Carl seems to think DAL is trying to screw us out of something. He is probably right. The question is "out of what." OFG
Why are we even talking about time right now?
Other than the DALPA reps, none of us have any idea what might be in this TA.
05-21-2015, 05:49 AM
#4458
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
My guess is that they are trying to minimize the inevitable increase in costs by getting an early deal that will pay out less in the long run, to quantify any future increase in cost as soon as possible, and/or to resolve any operational issues that appear to be looming.
NO PERMANENT CONCESSIONS
05-21-2015, 06:39 AM
#4460
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
I'm a bit confused by the negotiating set up this time. First the company wants to open and negotiate early. For what? PR value? They had to know DALPA was gonna open high and had no need to hurry. They have to know this contract is gonna be expensive. Obviously they must want something. Sick leave---? how many true serial abusers exist and how much could they save? May be an irritant to the company, but seriously. A handful of senior F/Os bid with LCAs and leverage a good deal... out of almost 13,000. Those things sound like diversions. Productivity--they will always want more--no surprise there. Serious high value items: more RJ scope relief, Intl scope relief, changes to Profit Sharing. Any of these items are gonna cost DAL a ton if we yield at all. Now they go and flush $5 billion on stock buybacks? So they can claim poverty? If the company wants a quick deal it can be a form of leverage for us. Carl seems to think DAL is trying to screw us out of something. He is probably right. The question is "out of what." OFG
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
