Details on Delta TA
05-27-2015, 10:41 AM
#4912
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Yeah, I do know that, but I was wondering if you had any references for it other than just forum hyperbole. The only thing I have on it is the Scope analysis PP slides frot he May MEC meeting and it is a little vague. Things on here tend to get blown out of proportion. Hard to believe, I know.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
05-27-2015, 10:59 AM
#4914
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
05-27-2015, 11:01 AM
#4915
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
05-27-2015, 11:14 AM
#4916
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.
Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
DALPA wants this forgiven. If they can roll it into C2015, they absolutely will. If they can't (because the company refuses to give a settlement of the grievance any value), DALPA will provide a very poor defense at the grievance hearing so that a loss is ensured. Why? Because they never believed in the grievance from the beginning.
Carl
05-27-2015, 03:35 PM
#4919
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
Yeah, I do know that, but I was wondering if you had any references for it other than just forum hyperbole. The only thing I have on it is the Scope analysis PP slides frot he May MEC meeting and it is a little vague. Things on here tend to get blown out of proportion. Hard to believe, I know.
05-27-2015, 04:24 PM
#4920
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
223 max. Hyperbole? Who is injecting unnecessary big words? It would not be cheap to unwind the contracts to buy/lease/capacity purchase/ or whatever else is involved. Esp if you wanted to do it quickly. Do you think DAL would just pick up the phone and say "Oh, we decided to bankrupt your company today by violating our contracts." Nope. Probably would cost big bucks. Methinks you oversimplify in your mind. OFG
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
