Last Year > This Week
08-13-2016, 06:03 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
One final point and I'm back to permanent lurking and you can have your echo chamber back:
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
08-14-2016, 02:09 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
08-14-2016, 05:12 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: Gold-Braided Lesser French Fort Commander
Posts: 137
One final point and I'm back to permanent lurking and you can have your echo chamber back:
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
So now we're supposed to meet in the middle? "Didn't think they'd do that." Did you? Thanks Pal.
08-14-2016, 07:14 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Years ago, some of us newer guys asked why our contract opener was so extreme: "Shouldn't we save time by opening close to the middle ground, since that's where we always end up anyway?"
An old timer replied: "That would change the location of the 'middle ground'."
An old timer replied: "That would change the location of the 'middle ground'."
08-14-2016, 08:02 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
That's why I was upset when I saw our reopener in December. Thought to myself, this is where we need to end up not start. Now here we are with a middle ground that's well below minimums. I think Malone has lost the pulse of the average Delta pilot.
08-14-2016, 08:07 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 269
Also, if you "know" what Sam and Scott are doing someone is feeding you info. My guess is its incorrect. Sam and Scott want to follow the survey data, which is aspirational in nature. You will not get everything and even you know it.
08-14-2016, 08:08 AM
#57
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Our MEC failed us starting wayyy back in 2004, when they didn't demand a snap back clause for all the concessions, BEFORE management got any bonuses.
Then they dropped the ball again, by not keeping tract of how many Billions this pilot group has been contributing to Delta's bottom line ever since LOA46. It would be a much easier negotiating stance to have that number available to put in front of the Mediator and the press;
"Since Bankruptcy, the Delta Pilots have contributed over $10 Billion (my wag, insert actual number) to Delta's bottom line, to help Delta become one of the industry leaders. Now that Delta is earning historical profits, the Delta Pilots want to be restored to their pre-bankruptcy pay, retirement and benefit levels."
Simple, no 'meet in the middle' required, just restore us to our pre-bankruptcy levels and we're good. But to allow management to blow Billions of our concession money on stock buybacks, as well as fuel hedges, and not say a peep about it in the media, is just stupid when it comes to negotiating 101.
MEC silence on this lack of Restoration implies consent. Worse still, we have some MEC members as well as Negotiators who really believe we have not given enough, and we need to give a company making over $8 Billion this year, even MORE concessions!
Un-be-frickn'-lieveable!
08-14-2016, 08:11 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Quit doing the bidding of those that don't want to get to a deal. You do know that when info is leaked to you, it has a slant on it. Always crosscheck your info from across the table before you post it.
Also, if you "know" what Sam and Scott are doing someone is feeding you info. My guess is its incorrect. Sam and Scott want to follow the survey data, which is aspirational in nature. You will not get everything and even you know it.
Also, if you "know" what Sam and Scott are doing someone is feeding you info. My guess is its incorrect. Sam and Scott want to follow the survey data, which is aspirational in nature. You will not get everything and even you know it.
08-14-2016, 08:11 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 269
I'll agree with H50 as well. It might work in reverse when GOL/Trainer/VA (and whatever else) lose money, but I see your point. It's galling to think that the company invests money we help them earn, into other entities, and we might not benefit.
I don't have qualms about monetizing the low end of PS, but not having upside protection is a non-starter. In theory, you could have the best of both worlds by monetizing the low end, and keeping the upper-end, but we'd be arguing for years about what's a raise, and what isn't. At this juncture, if you're looking for consensus so we can move out of our own way, I think PS must be mostly intact.
I don't have qualms about monetizing the low end of PS, but not having upside protection is a non-starter. In theory, you could have the best of both worlds by monetizing the low end, and keeping the upper-end, but we'd be arguing for years about what's a raise, and what isn't. At this juncture, if you're looking for consensus so we can move out of our own way, I think PS must be mostly intact.
08-14-2016, 08:13 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 269
Actually, not stalling at all.
Contract Awareness Bulletins were being prepared at that time to inform all of the pilots at the same time. They were distributed on July 14 and 27. He was spot on accurate and completely truthful. But some folks only like to hear only what they want to hear.
In your zeal to deride every effort by ALPA on your behalf, you are missing the underlying truth and the self-evident point that something as simple as agreeing on a pay rate that had been already previously agreed to by both parties, the new negotiators were directed by the ego and emotions of the newly established MEC majority and they were sent in to up the ante and retreat from the previously agreed position.
The result was a negotiations stalemate . . . which some could see as stalling. (Is any of this sounding familiar?)
Fortunately, the PWA provided a process which resulted in the June arbitration hearing. We will know where the dot is when the (single) arbitrator provides his ruling.
Contract Awareness Bulletins were being prepared at that time to inform all of the pilots at the same time. They were distributed on July 14 and 27. He was spot on accurate and completely truthful. But some folks only like to hear only what they want to hear.
In your zeal to deride every effort by ALPA on your behalf, you are missing the underlying truth and the self-evident point that something as simple as agreeing on a pay rate that had been already previously agreed to by both parties, the new negotiators were directed by the ego and emotions of the newly established MEC majority and they were sent in to up the ante and retreat from the previously agreed position.
The result was a negotiations stalemate . . . which some could see as stalling. (Is any of this sounding familiar?)
Fortunately, the PWA provided a process which resulted in the June arbitration hearing. We will know where the dot is when the (single) arbitrator provides his ruling.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
