No vote now gets you a 6% raise
11-19-2016, 12:05 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
It's a very different color in the CC world. Some are clinging onto the fact that the DPA & CC exit polls show it failing 75/25, as if that's an accurate representation of the pilot group...
They're slaying a SLC rep because the way he voted on the TA. He's telling them that he voted the way his constituents wanted...they just can't believe that that many pilots were for the TA. I have little sympathy for a group of people that are unwilling to see/debate the other side. Anytime someone posts a pro TA view, they just get attacked. They can't get past the fact that items they consider concessionary may not be viewed as a con by others.
It's going to be interesting to watch the meltdown over there when this TA passes. If it passes by > 75%, I predict a few Rachael Maddow style breakdowns on the forum. Tune in when the TA results are released...bring popcorn!
They're slaying a SLC rep because the way he voted on the TA. He's telling them that he voted the way his constituents wanted...they just can't believe that that many pilots were for the TA. I have little sympathy for a group of people that are unwilling to see/debate the other side. Anytime someone posts a pro TA view, they just get attacked. They can't get past the fact that items they consider concessionary may not be viewed as a con by others.
It's going to be interesting to watch the meltdown over there when this TA passes. If it passes by > 75%, I predict a few Rachael Maddow style breakdowns on the forum. Tune in when the TA results are released...bring popcorn!
He was elected when all the recalls were taking place with new reps being swept in on a platform of change and getting more. Once in office and exposed to the realities of negotiations, the complexity of the contract, as well as the workings of the RLA and NMB he became a realist. That said, he was a part of the process that indeed got us more and a better TA.
And for being a realist and listening to his constituents he is being raked over the coals on CC.
11-19-2016, 01:44 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,571
MEC chairman will have the right, hopefully he exercises it.
11-19-2016, 02:27 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
11-19-2016, 02:45 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
11-19-2016, 06:00 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
You're saying that if the DOJ requires it, which is not a given, and Alaska agrees, which is absolutely not a given (although maybe you didn't mean to phrase it like that so I'll ignore that one), then we can cancel it. Isn't that what you said?
Its IMO not a done deal that DOJ will require this. What if they don't? Or they only limit the pulldown to a few routes?
Maybe RB's waving his hidden hand in all of this and that's the reason that the company otherwise unexplainably refuses to even make a dent in Alaska's previous high water mark, despite supposedly being on the verge of total elimination. VX is still his emotional baby, and its very possible they will at least operate the sub-brand separately. If so, he will want a face saving gravy train revenue stream.
I'm not saying that I know for sure what the DOJ will require of them. I'm merely wondering that if this is such a done deal, then why does the company flat out refuse to budge on it?
In 2015 we wanted it to be a hub and they said no way. In 2016 they said OK fine, its a hub, but Alaska still gets to do whatever they want with no additional restrictions. Despite being on the verge of complete mandatory elimination. Why? Even if the merger is called off or something, why couldn't we at least lock in current levels? And it won't be called off, because its a 100% guarantee, right?
Its IMO not a done deal that DOJ will require this. What if they don't? Or they only limit the pulldown to a few routes?
Maybe RB's waving his hidden hand in all of this and that's the reason that the company otherwise unexplainably refuses to even make a dent in Alaska's previous high water mark, despite supposedly being on the verge of total elimination. VX is still his emotional baby, and its very possible they will at least operate the sub-brand separately. If so, he will want a face saving gravy train revenue stream.
I'm not saying that I know for sure what the DOJ will require of them. I'm merely wondering that if this is such a done deal, then why does the company flat out refuse to budge on it?
In 2015 we wanted it to be a hub and they said no way. In 2016 they said OK fine, its a hub, but Alaska still gets to do whatever they want with no additional restrictions. Despite being on the verge of complete mandatory elimination. Why? Even if the merger is called off or something, why couldn't we at least lock in current levels? And it won't be called off, because its a 100% guarantee, right?
11-19-2016, 08:54 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
You're saying that if the DOJ requires it, which is not a given, and Alaska agrees, which is absolutely not a given (although maybe you didn't mean to phrase it like that so I'll ignore that one), then we can cancel it. Isn't that what you said?
The termination of the DAL/AK code share has been reported to be a requirement by the government to consummate the merger between AK/VAmerica. Do you really think Alaska won't agree to do it and trash their merger plans? Don't think so.
Its IMO not a done deal that DOJ will require this. What if they don't? Or they only limit the pulldown to a few routes?
This has nothing to do with what I posted.
Maybe RB's waving his hidden hand in all of this and that's the reason that the company otherwise unexplainably refuses to even make a dent in Alaska's previous high water mark, despite supposedly being on the verge of total elimination. VX is still his emotional baby, and its very possible they will at least operate the sub-brand separately. If so, he will want a face saving gravy train revenue stream.
I'm not saying that I know for sure what the DOJ will require of them. I'm merely wondering that if this is such a done deal, then why does the company flat out refuse to budge on it?
If this is a requirement for their merger, it doesn't matter what Delta management won't budge on.
In 2015 we wanted it to be a hub and they said no way. In 2016 they said OK fine, its a hub, but Alaska still gets to do whatever they want with no additional restrictions. Despite being on the verge of complete mandatory elimination. Why? Even if the merger is called off or something, why couldn't we at least lock in current levels? And it won't be called off, because its a 100% guarantee, right?
The termination of the DAL/AK code share has been reported to be a requirement by the government to consummate the merger between AK/VAmerica. Do you really think Alaska won't agree to do it and trash their merger plans? Don't think so.
Its IMO not a done deal that DOJ will require this. What if they don't? Or they only limit the pulldown to a few routes?
This has nothing to do with what I posted.
Maybe RB's waving his hidden hand in all of this and that's the reason that the company otherwise unexplainably refuses to even make a dent in Alaska's previous high water mark, despite supposedly being on the verge of total elimination. VX is still his emotional baby, and its very possible they will at least operate the sub-brand separately. If so, he will want a face saving gravy train revenue stream.
I'm not saying that I know for sure what the DOJ will require of them. I'm merely wondering that if this is such a done deal, then why does the company flat out refuse to budge on it?
If this is a requirement for their merger, it doesn't matter what Delta management won't budge on.
In 2015 we wanted it to be a hub and they said no way. In 2016 they said OK fine, its a hub, but Alaska still gets to do whatever they want with no additional restrictions. Despite being on the verge of complete mandatory elimination. Why? Even if the merger is called off or something, why couldn't we at least lock in current levels? And it won't be called off, because its a 100% guarantee, right?
My only point was, if the Government requires AK to end our codeshare as a requirement to the merger and AK agrees, the MEC Chairman can terminate the AK codeshare section of our PWA unilaterally with 60 days notice. You seemed to disagree. Just wondering why?
Denny
11-19-2016, 10:21 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Also, if (big if) As is forced to cx the DL code share, what about their other code shares?
11-19-2016, 10:29 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Irrelevant. We have a base that for years was taken advantage of by management due to our crappy scope language carveout for that base. Until and unless that is fixed, I would place a high priority on any base in that situation.
I was never against the entire As code share. Some of it (mostly Horizon on thin routes) actually made sense. But 14 flights a day on large 737's while we did zero, and 2 BOS-SEA flights while we did zero, and many other examples, including where we'd drop everything and literally strand our passengers on the "tarmac" for the entire length of an Alaska turn to give them precious priority handling was ridiculous.
Much of that has self corrected, but the potential for its return is still there. Our other hubs have protections to prevent this. Its long past due that the AS code share limits get reined in. The progress we've made hasn't b been because of some paradigm shift whereby management suddenly wants to use our pilots even though they don't have to. Their hand was forced (thankfully!) by the decisions of another management team. I've joked that the Alaska CEO was moonlighting as the DL VP of West Coast Pilot Hiring.
Hopefully those trends continue. But since hope isn't a strategy, I want it in writing.
I was never against the entire As code share. Some of it (mostly Horizon on thin routes) actually made sense. But 14 flights a day on large 737's while we did zero, and 2 BOS-SEA flights while we did zero, and many other examples, including where we'd drop everything and literally strand our passengers on the "tarmac" for the entire length of an Alaska turn to give them precious priority handling was ridiculous.
Much of that has self corrected, but the potential for its return is still there. Our other hubs have protections to prevent this. Its long past due that the AS code share limits get reined in. The progress we've made hasn't b been because of some paradigm shift whereby management suddenly wants to use our pilots even though they don't have to. Their hand was forced (thankfully!) by the decisions of another management team. I've joked that the Alaska CEO was moonlighting as the DL VP of West Coast Pilot Hiring.
Hopefully those trends continue. But since hope isn't a strategy, I want it in writing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAL EWR
Union Talk
8
11-08-2008 03:37 PM
