Delta Pilots Association
10-31-2010, 05:46 PM
#2061
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. You are correct that the claim was officially for concessions. However, most of the money went into our retirement accounts, not our paychecks. For me personally, the claim and note gave enough of a boost to my retirement that I am on a pretty good track there. However, it has done nothing for my income, which has a purchasing power about HALF of what it should be.
I'm grateful for the boost to help get my retirement back on track. But to paint it as a substitute for a snap back, making whole our overall compensation, I think is very inaccurate and misleading... in a similar way to how LM's latest letter was misleading.
I'm grateful for the boost to help get my retirement back on track. But to paint it as a substitute for a snap back, making whole our overall compensation, I think is very inaccurate and misleading... in a similar way to how LM's latest letter was misleading.
Regardless, I'm also grateful for the boost.
Looking towards the future, we need to start pulling together and sharpening our pencils for section 6 or possibly mid contract improvements if we can get some.
10-31-2010, 05:50 PM
#2062
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I hear ya 88 Driver, but consider the possibility that most pilots might have expressed a preference for having their IRS 415 bucket filled first. ALSO, I'm not an expert, but I think I heard once that they were able to negotiate a larger claim and note if it went in predominantly as a company contribution than as income. Something to do with company taxes I believe.
Regardless, I'm also grateful for the boost.
Looking towards the future, we need to start pulling together and sharpening our pencils for section 6 or possibly mid contract improvements if we can get some.
Regardless, I'm also grateful for the boost.
Looking towards the future, we need to start pulling together and sharpening our pencils for section 6 or possibly mid contract improvements if we can get some.
10-31-2010, 05:57 PM
#2064
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
There is an attempt to exclude CAPA from this process by scheduling meetings without notifying CAPA. It's sad, but this committee appears to only be interested in reps that agree to raising pilot hours from 8 per day to 10. If you don't want that, you'll have to fight hard to find out where the meetings are held. And then endure folks like you insinuating that CAPA doesn't care.
That's not what I'm hearing. What I've been told is that there is a disconnect between the CAPA representatives to the ARC and CAPA Corporate Comm. The CAPA reps recently met with the ARC and they are in agreement with the ALPA representatives there.
That's because what you've posted is wrong. APA and ALPA have agreed to cooperate rather than compete. APA did not approach ALPA for help with their negotiations.
Rather than compete? Come on, in what way does ALPA compete with the APA? Regardless, explain to me what services the APA is offering ALPA, in what way are they cooperating with ALPA?
I think you're reaching Carl. From what I've heard, the APA approached ALPA and went down to FL before the BOD asking for some help.
That's because CAPA and ALPA are diametrically opposed on many issues. 1500 hour rule, fatigue reduction, etc.
Carl
That's not what I'm hearing. What I've been told is that there is a disconnect between the CAPA representatives to the ARC and CAPA Corporate Comm. The CAPA reps recently met with the ARC and they are in agreement with the ALPA representatives there.
That's because what you've posted is wrong. APA and ALPA have agreed to cooperate rather than compete. APA did not approach ALPA for help with their negotiations.
Rather than compete? Come on, in what way does ALPA compete with the APA? Regardless, explain to me what services the APA is offering ALPA, in what way are they cooperating with ALPA?
I think you're reaching Carl. From what I've heard, the APA approached ALPA and went down to FL before the BOD asking for some help.
That's because CAPA and ALPA are diametrically opposed on many issues. 1500 hour rule, fatigue reduction, etc.
Carl
10-31-2010, 06:13 PM
#2065
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
IMO, we will see that ALPA has totally surrendered on this issue. The NPRM will indeed include the increase from 8 to 10 hours. ALPA will say they did the best they could, but at least they had a seat at the table by supporting the NPRM...WHICH INCLUDES ALL THIS OTHER GREAT STUFF!
Carl
10-31-2010, 06:30 PM
#2066
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
No Carl, the FAA would just put out FAR 117 without any input from us. Also ALPA proposed a nine hr block day, not ten, and it is listed as one of the areas they have issues with.
As for being " In Love with ALPA," that is not how I would classify it. I have an opinion what the best organization is for our pilots. I see many pitfalls with option two. Especially going in to our first post BK section six and a section six with a company that should be solidly in the black. Of course that is just the start. It does not even consider the "International Issues" that we have discussed some 2000 posts ago. A domestic organization which will be what DPA will be will be fighting from the low ground from the get go.
As for being " In Love with ALPA," that is not how I would classify it. I have an opinion what the best organization is for our pilots. I see many pitfalls with option two. Especially going in to our first post BK section six and a section six with a company that should be solidly in the black. Of course that is just the start. It does not even consider the "International Issues" that we have discussed some 2000 posts ago. A domestic organization which will be what DPA will be will be fighting from the low ground from the get go.
10-31-2010, 06:34 PM
#2067
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I hear ya 88 Driver, but consider the possibility that most pilots might have expressed a preference for having their IRS 415 bucket filled first. ALSO, I'm not an expert, but I think I heard once that they were able to negotiate a larger claim and note if it went in predominantly as a company contribution than as income. Something to do with company taxes I believe.
Regardless, I'm also grateful for the boost.
Looking towards the future, we need to start pulling together and sharpening our pencils for section 6 or possibly mid contract improvements if we can get some.
Regardless, I'm also grateful for the boost.
Looking towards the future, we need to start pulling together and sharpening our pencils for section 6 or possibly mid contract improvements if we can get some.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I would have wanted the claim and note to go into our paychecks. I like the fact that it went into our retirement accounts. That was my preference as well for that particular situation.
What I do want is for my representatives to be focused on restoration and to clearly state this as our objective. I get concerned when I see someone trying to pass off what we've gotten so far as any kind of significant progress towards that end. In the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't come anywhere close to adding up. Again, I'm glad to get whatever we can get. But not at the expense of losing focus on the really important stuff like our compensation and scope. When someone touts the note, claim, stock, and tiny pay increases from the merger as making significant progress, it tells me that they have taken their eye off the ball and, even worse, it sets the wrong tone and expectations on the part of both management and even our own pilot group. LM's most recent letter is a classic example of what I am talking about.
Getting back to the ALPA/DPA thing... IMO, this MEC better elect a Chairman that is vastly different from LM and that understands the importance of setting and communicating restoration as our objective. If they don't, my total support will be for DPA because DALPA will have conclusively proven to me that it is not capable of the necessary changes.
10-31-2010, 06:37 PM
#2068
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
For me personally, this MEC better elect a Chairman that is vastly different from LM and that understands the importance of setting and communicating restoration as our objective. If they don't, my total support will be for DPA because DALPA will have conclusively proven to me that it is not capable of the necessary changes.
I want an MEC to develop a strategy to maximize what we are able to achieve. If that is C2K+, excellent; if its not, then so be it, so long as its the best we could get. And yelling ANY arbitrary number is meaningless. It's all about leverage and unity; something that will sorely be lacking if the DPA drive keeps going.
10-31-2010, 06:40 PM
#2069
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
How many times are we going to each repeat ourselves, 88? APA touted the "restoration" for 3+ years, and that strategy yielded zip. Why do you think us touting that would have any different result?
I want an MEC to develop a strategy to maximize what we are able to achieve. If that is C2K+, excellent; if its not, then so be it, so long as its the best we could get. And yelling ANY arbitrary number is meaningless. It's all about leverage and unity; something that will sorely be lacking if the DPA drive keeps going.
I want an MEC to develop a strategy to maximize what we are able to achieve. If that is C2K+, excellent; if its not, then so be it, so long as its the best we could get. And yelling ANY arbitrary number is meaningless. It's all about leverage and unity; something that will sorely be lacking if the DPA drive keeps going.
Yep, what a time for a divided group!
10-31-2010, 06:48 PM
#2070
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Did we need to take the first offer. No. DALPA would go on to emphasize that by rejecting this TA, we would be hammered by the judge, process ends.
Not true.
Exhibit 1. Hawaiian Airlines. Rejected the first TA that was produced because it reached too far. The went back and after working on it produced the 2nd TA that was ratified.
This TA
* Did not terminate their pension.
* Had significantly higher payrates.
* Had significantly higher DC.
Not true.
Exhibit 1. Hawaiian Airlines. Rejected the first TA that was produced because it reached too far. The went back and after working on it produced the 2nd TA that was ratified.
This TA
* Did not terminate their pension.
* Had significantly higher payrates.
* Had significantly higher DC.
Maybe you can tell me how Hawaiian's creditors fared in their bankruptcy relative to labor. Then compare and contrast how Delta's creditors fared compared to Delta pilots.
Here's a hint: the difference was substantial.
Can you tell me the difference in funding between Hawaiian's DB plan and Delta's pilot DB plan? Hint: the difference was substantial.
The Hawaiian bankruptcy wasn't remotely similar to Delta's. The results weren't similar for any party or creditor.
AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION-(C)1997-2005 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Hawaiian Airlines Inc on Thursday (19 May) said it won court approval for its bankruptcy reorganization plan.
The carrier reportedly expects to emerge from Chapter 11 on June 1, more than two years after filing for bankruptcy.
The company said creditors will receive 100% of the value of their claims, while stockholders will keep their shares. In addition, Hawaiian has negotiated new labor contracts with its employees, reported Reuters.
Delta: Common shareholders wiped out (over 200 million shares). Creditors on average received about 46 cents on the dollar (pilots received just over 60 cents).
Hawaiian's pension plan: $4.5 million underfunded
Delta Pilot Plan: $3 billion underfunded
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
