Details on Delta TA
06-08-2015, 05:46 AM
#6201
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
I'm keeping my powder dry until I see the numbers, but my hope and expectation is that we will beat 2004 payrates in this contract, and with good profit sharing, will come close to 2004's buying power. And I believe that those rates will be far more sustainable than they were in 2004. Sometimes we forget the importance of that.
06-08-2015, 05:54 AM
#6203
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
06-08-2015, 06:08 AM
#6204
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Clearly you are babbling.
The MEC will vote on this thing and we will or won't get our vote, depending on their decision. I'm asking a single question. How can a group who green lighted the table position turn around and reject that position? Doesn't bode well if it happens. Will it be the end of the world? Clearly not. I just think however it will frame what we will see in the end in that the MEC will lack credibility with the company.
However, I think a more valid path that could lead to a significantly different result would be a failed ratification by the pilots. Yes, it would take a considerable time to get a new MEC and NC. That time would be an expense that would dilute the final results to a certain extent. If the majority is onboard with paying that cost, so be it. Hopefully it wouldn't drag on for years instead of months.
I think it does not bode well for an MEC to flip flop. Again my thinking is that if they reject, they actually had a very thin consensus to begin with when they green lighted the NC. That says we have a divided MEC, which is what I've said all along. The MEC last time had a thin majority approving the 2012 TA, where the dissenters actually campaigned to defeat it via the ratification process. What happens this time if the apparent swing voter or voters switch camps? Clearly the TA will fail. Will we have the same split MEC? Absolutely. I don't see epic agreements coming from such an MEC. Nor do I see RA giving the respect such an MEC needs to have to force his hand.
All this is speculation of course. Maybe they will have the votes. I hope so. Flip-flopping governing bodies are painful to watch. Check out history of the APA as a nice illustration.
The MEC will vote on this thing and we will or won't get our vote, depending on their decision. I'm asking a single question. How can a group who green lighted the table position turn around and reject that position? Doesn't bode well if it happens. Will it be the end of the world? Clearly not. I just think however it will frame what we will see in the end in that the MEC will lack credibility with the company.
However, I think a more valid path that could lead to a significantly different result would be a failed ratification by the pilots. Yes, it would take a considerable time to get a new MEC and NC. That time would be an expense that would dilute the final results to a certain extent. If the majority is onboard with paying that cost, so be it. Hopefully it wouldn't drag on for years instead of months.
I think it does not bode well for an MEC to flip flop. Again my thinking is that if they reject, they actually had a very thin consensus to begin with when they green lighted the NC. That says we have a divided MEC, which is what I've said all along. The MEC last time had a thin majority approving the 2012 TA, where the dissenters actually campaigned to defeat it via the ratification process. What happens this time if the apparent swing voter or voters switch camps? Clearly the TA will fail. Will we have the same split MEC? Absolutely. I don't see epic agreements coming from such an MEC. Nor do I see RA giving the respect such an MEC needs to have to force his hand.
All this is speculation of course. Maybe they will have the votes. I hope so. Flip-flopping governing bodies are painful to watch. Check out history of the APA as a nice illustration.
It's a good thing you're not personally running for office because this swing voter just departed your town meeting. Oh, and ask around, I'm not one of the burn the house down guys. I'm the swing voter your looking for.
Ferd
06-08-2015, 06:14 AM
#6205
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 717a
Posts: 707
As to concessions I didn't bring it up as I don't see a need for them. Do you?
Do you have some advance knowledge of the TA? Out with it man!
06-08-2015, 06:18 AM
#6206
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
I guess different guys get mad about different things. But, if (and I know at this point it's a big if and I'll immediately delete this post if the rumor is BS) but the sick leave 3rd party verification thing burns me up. Basically, they are calling me, and my Doctor, liars.
The verification bugged me in the last contract but my wife likes it a lot. It made me get off my dead arse and get some real drugs and treated vs self medicating. But, the idea of probably having to drive across town to see someone has be burned!
Grumpy old man who sees a Doctor more often than he ever used to,
Ferd
The verification bugged me in the last contract but my wife likes it a lot. It made me get off my dead arse and get some real drugs and treated vs self medicating. But, the idea of probably having to drive across town to see someone has be burned!
Grumpy old man who sees a Doctor more often than he ever used to,
Ferd
06-08-2015, 06:21 AM
#6207
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
Well, it was $304.86, but your point is a good one. Also, while we did have an A-plan, our defined contribution plan is much higher today. And we didn't have profit sharing.
I'm keeping my powder dry until I see the numbers, but my hope and expectation is that we will beat 2004 payrates in this contract, and with good profit sharing, will come close to 2004's buying power. And I believe that those rates will be far more sustainable than they were in 2004. Sometimes we forget the importance of that.
I'm keeping my powder dry until I see the numbers, but my hope and expectation is that we will beat 2004 payrates in this contract, and with good profit sharing, will come close to 2004's buying power. And I believe that those rates will be far more sustainable than they were in 2004. Sometimes we forget the importance of that.
Most people do focus on pay rates but we will have to see how big the negatives are like sick leave, etc.
There could also be some positive aspects like increased vacation pay too that we do not have the details on.
We will have to view the TA in its entirety. Currently I am neutral on voting yes or no because I have very few facts and just a lot of forum rumors.
06-08-2015, 06:22 AM
#6208
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: tri current
Posts: 1,485
Said at the IATA general meeting:
John Strickland, director at London-based JLS Consulting, said the industry would be well served by a full-throated discussion of the issues posed by the Gulf carriers’ emergence as industry heavyweights.
It needs to be an open debate, not just whispers in corridors, because the airline business is changing,” Strickland said in a telephone interview. “You still have the rock-solid markets of old, but you have new ones developing. Some carriers are seizing new opportunities and challenging the status quo. The question is, do you complain or do you follow their lead?”
TP
John Strickland, director at London-based JLS Consulting, said the industry would be well served by a full-throated discussion of the issues posed by the Gulf carriers’ emergence as industry heavyweights.
It needs to be an open debate, not just whispers in corridors, because the airline business is changing,” Strickland said in a telephone interview. “You still have the rock-solid markets of old, but you have new ones developing. Some carriers are seizing new opportunities and challenging the status quo. The question is, do you complain or do you follow their lead?”
TP
06-08-2015, 06:22 AM
#6209
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Those are all valid points. This raise coupled with profit sharing, which with our projected profits will still increase, could give us an overall W-2 approaching C2004 plus inflation. Easily.
Most people do focus on pay rates but we will have to see how big the negatives are like sick leave, etc.
There could also be some positive aspects like increased vacation pay too that we do not have the details on.
We will have to view the TA in its entirety. Currently I am neutral on voting yes or no because I have very few facts and just a lot of forum rumors.
Most people do focus on pay rates but we will have to see how big the negatives are like sick leave, etc.
There could also be some positive aspects like increased vacation pay too that we do not have the details on.
We will have to view the TA in its entirety. Currently I am neutral on voting yes or no because I have very few facts and just a lot of forum rumors.
06-08-2015, 06:23 AM
#6210
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Sorry to rehash old topics, but I like to look at all options and consider past history. The profit history of this industry is not very consistent. Sure right now things are wonderful and I'm thankful for it, but I wouldn't count on it to continue.
This industry is NOT proactive, it's reactive and it keeps making the same mistakes over and over. Just look at the ticket sales at SWA. Same old shtick.
Delta likes to make a big deal about paying down debt. That's all well and good, but at some point we are going to need to spend some big bucks. The Mad Dogs need replacing, our tech is ancient and other parts of our fleet are getting up there too.
Right now it's all about looking good for the street. Short term stuff. Stock buybacks and "shareholder value"
All that being said the % increase would have to be VERY significant for me to consider a yes vote for a TA that modified PS.
This industry is NOT proactive, it's reactive and it keeps making the same mistakes over and over. Just look at the ticket sales at SWA. Same old shtick.
Delta likes to make a big deal about paying down debt. That's all well and good, but at some point we are going to need to spend some big bucks. The Mad Dogs need replacing, our tech is ancient and other parts of our fleet are getting up there too.
Right now it's all about looking good for the street. Short term stuff. Stock buybacks and "shareholder value"
All that being said the % increase would have to be VERY significant for me to consider a yes vote for a TA that modified PS.
Perhaps you and the rest of the "long time lurkers, first time posters" know something we don't.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
