Details on Delta TA
08-07-2014, 04:02 PM
#452
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
As always, we all want the same things (more money and more time off), it's a matter of how we get them that is at question.
I understand the TVM argument. Assuming the end number is the same, I'd prefer to have the money up front. Delta is now making Billions in profit and we took home a 3% pay raise on Jan 1. It seems to me that we left some money on the table. How much, I don't know, just seems odd to me that some on this board who are so proud of C2012 can't admit that Delta could of afforded to pay us more. Looking at the numbers or facts, they can afford to pay us more. It's DALPA's job to get more of that money into our pockets.
I find it interesting that with this last LOA, we turned it down and the company immediately sweetened the pot. I believe that if we would of turned down C2012 the company would of come right back with something better. Why? Because they needed the scope relief to make the RJ-717 upgauge work.
As usual I will not vote for anything that requires fewer pilots to staff the airline. No more TLV increases etc!
Lets hope C2015 is a positive one!
I understand the TVM argument. Assuming the end number is the same, I'd prefer to have the money up front. Delta is now making Billions in profit and we took home a 3% pay raise on Jan 1. It seems to me that we left some money on the table. How much, I don't know, just seems odd to me that some on this board who are so proud of C2012 can't admit that Delta could of afforded to pay us more. Looking at the numbers or facts, they can afford to pay us more. It's DALPA's job to get more of that money into our pockets.
I find it interesting that with this last LOA, we turned it down and the company immediately sweetened the pot. I believe that if we would of turned down C2012 the company would of come right back with something better. Why? Because they needed the scope relief to make the RJ-717 upgauge work.
As usual I will not vote for anything that requires fewer pilots to staff the airline. No more TLV increases etc!
Lets hope C2015 is a positive one!
08-07-2014, 05:21 PM
#453
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
You have used this analogy twice now. I know you think you are making a point but maybe if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of how we got to the moon (in 1969 by the way 8 years after 1961) you would realize that you are making my point and blowing your view out of the water.
What happened after that speech? Did they put together a rocket, put Neil Armstrong et. al. in the capsule and then launch to the moon? Or maybe did they have a series of unmanned rocket launches, did they shoot dogs into space, did they have Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo 1, Apollo 2, Apollo 3......up until Apollo 11? Did they learn how to get into the upper atmosphere, then orbit, then spacewalk, then orbital rendezvous, then launch of Saturn 5, then orbit the moon, then LEM extraction and rendezvous, and then they landed on the moon?
Along the way, was there thousands of engineers, mathematicians, astrophysicists, and many other "bean counters" who hammered down problem after problem after problem after problem until they could safely go to the moon.
Now who was more important to the success of Apollo 11, all these problem solvers or the guy sitting on the couch whining and complaining because they haven't gotten to the moon yet?
So yes, I would proudly claim to be some "bean counter" problem solver who moves the operation along in any way possible, rather than a perma-whiner complaint maven who doesn't do crap to help anyone ever and just complains about the efforts of others.
That's how they got to the moon my friend and people like you were nothing but boat anchors along the way.
What happened after that speech? Did they put together a rocket, put Neil Armstrong et. al. in the capsule and then launch to the moon? Or maybe did they have a series of unmanned rocket launches, did they shoot dogs into space, did they have Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo 1, Apollo 2, Apollo 3......up until Apollo 11? Did they learn how to get into the upper atmosphere, then orbit, then spacewalk, then orbital rendezvous, then launch of Saturn 5, then orbit the moon, then LEM extraction and rendezvous, and then they landed on the moon?
Along the way, was there thousands of engineers, mathematicians, astrophysicists, and many other "bean counters" who hammered down problem after problem after problem after problem until they could safely go to the moon.
Now who was more important to the success of Apollo 11, all these problem solvers or the guy sitting on the couch whining and complaining because they haven't gotten to the moon yet?
So yes, I would proudly claim to be some "bean counter" problem solver who moves the operation along in any way possible, rather than a perma-whiner complaint maven who doesn't do crap to help anyone ever and just complains about the efforts of others.
That's how they got to the moon my friend and people like you were nothing but boat anchors along the way.
Contrast that with DALPA. We took the massive concessions almost 10 years ago. Not once has DALPA ever articulated that we expect to restore our profession and our careers. Whatever DALPA's objective is (we don't know because nobody in a leadership position will say), a big part of what you've been doing... repeatedly... for the past 10 years is working tirelessly to lower the expectations of our pilot group so that we will accept agreements that make very little progress toward the objective of restoration (which you have said is not a realistic objective). You've failed to rally much more than HALF of the pilot group behind you.
Using the moon analogy, you guys have not only failed to define the objective of landing on the moon, you've continually argued against it. After 10 years (not 8) you've barely gotten us out of orbit! And we STILL don't know if we're trying to land on the moon or if we're maybe just trying to see how high of an orbit we can achieve with no particular goal in mind. Based on what DALPA has actually said and done, it appears that landing on the moon is not even remotely a consideration.
I think my analogy is pretty spot on, whether you like the point it makes or not.
08-07-2014, 06:07 PM
#454
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: A somewhere
Posts: 396
08-07-2014, 06:25 PM
#455
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Well here's the problem with what you're saying, Alfa. They did all that because they first identified, set, and clearly articulated their objective. They rallied the whole country around the objective. Then they went about achieving it with firm resolve and utilizing every possible resource available to them. They worked tirelessly and DID IT in 8 years.
Contrast that with DALPA. We took the massive concessions almost 10 years ago. Not once has DALPA ever articulated that we expect to restore our profession and our careers. Whatever DALPA's objective is (we don't know because nobody in a leadership position will say), a big part of what you've been doing... repeatedly... for the past 10 years is working tirelessly to lower the expectations of our pilot group so that we will accept agreements that make very little progress toward the objective of restoration (which you have said is not a realistic objective). You've failed to rally much more than HALF of the pilot group behind you.
Using the moon analogy, you guys have not only failed to define the objective of landing on the moon, you've continually argued against it. After 10 years (not 8) you've barely gotten us out of orbit! And we STILL don't know if we're trying to land on the moon or if we're maybe just trying to see how high of an orbit we can achieve with no particular goal in mind. Based on what DALPA has actually said and done, it appears that landing on the moon is not even remotely a consideration.
I think my analogy is pretty spot on, whether you like the point it makes or not.
Contrast that with DALPA. We took the massive concessions almost 10 years ago. Not once has DALPA ever articulated that we expect to restore our profession and our careers. Whatever DALPA's objective is (we don't know because nobody in a leadership position will say), a big part of what you've been doing... repeatedly... for the past 10 years is working tirelessly to lower the expectations of our pilot group so that we will accept agreements that make very little progress toward the objective of restoration (which you have said is not a realistic objective). You've failed to rally much more than HALF of the pilot group behind you.
Using the moon analogy, you guys have not only failed to define the objective of landing on the moon, you've continually argued against it. After 10 years (not 8) you've barely gotten us out of orbit! And we STILL don't know if we're trying to land on the moon or if we're maybe just trying to see how high of an orbit we can achieve with no particular goal in mind. Based on what DALPA has actually said and done, it appears that landing on the moon is not even remotely a consideration.
I think my analogy is pretty spot on, whether you like the point it makes or not.
08-07-2014, 08:06 PM
#456
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: A somewhere
Posts: 396
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
