Delta Pilots Association
11-23-2010, 05:49 AM
#2843
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
I'm not sure how it would be now (our current management is considerably sharper than past management), but in the past, DALPA's economic and financial analysis was usually more accurate that Delta's. We still have those same E&FA guys working for us, and I think they have a good handle on Delta's books.
11-23-2010, 05:52 AM
#2844
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
It is a conversation, and not one sided. From their perspective they have a point. Many want a pension back too. We talk about a Pension in our names, or managed by ALPA, which btw many are not adverse too, we talk about a greater DC contribution. From their perspective they do not have the time to to wait it out. I do see that, even though I do. Many do not want to be under these work rules for five to seven more years. They know that better work rules and a 20% DC contribution will mask a real pay raise. They see hourly wages are only part of the equation.
I tell them what I can suspect will be doable, and it is a lot farther away from an inflationary raise. Of course it is my opinion only.
Carl quoted a lot of what I wrote, and I am glad he did. It never says what I want, even though he tried to play it that way. I think it is clear I was giving the position of pilots that have less than 10 years left here (53 or older) They want to get a nice bump, but do not want to sit locked at the table or parked by the NMB. These are also guys that are part of the silent majority that we hear about. They like incremental gains, and constructive engagement. They vote for their reps, but other than that are satisfied that DALPA is doing everything they can at every opportunity. They would love to have conditions right for a C2K restoration contract, but they are not going to hold their breath for it.
Every wants the career back. Things like consolidation, though painful, are needed to get corporations in a position to sign off on 2-3 billion dollar a year increases in pilot compensation. UCAL need to work for both sides of the fence. AMR is debt ridden and needs to marry LCC or B6. If they do not they will go in to CH 11 in the next down turn, and be very hard to compete with while they are under protection. We need to have three or four major carriers with route networks like ours so that we can keep the ULCC's at bay. (Route structures like ours all pricing power and the ability to keep the barriers to entry high for upstarts) So, yes it serves all pilots to go though the pain of consolidation. It will in the end allow wages and benefits to increase.
Argue the semantics of a post all day, but the fact is that if we get to far out ahead of everyone else, we are a easy target if another group does not pattern up. It would be great if pilot costs were fixed across the industry but they are not. That means that corporations, the NMB etc will look at the industry at a given point and then determine what is reasonable and what is not. Many do not like that, but that is reality. Carl, you can berate my points all day, but whether or not it is a professional negotiator with DPA, DALPA, USAPA, APA, IPA, SWAPA, etc, they are going to tell you the same thing. AMR is fighting the good fight, and it makes sense to wait for a good time to come to an agreement, but their pilots have been waiting for five years for an agreement. If they would have gotten X% four years ago, our JPWA would have patterned up, and they would be back at the table with a rational request for what they are demanding now. CALALPA may have agreed to something along the way to. The point is that for every agreement up to the CH 11 era, patterning of about 20% worked and was a tried and true method. I admire APA for doing what they are doing, and they will eventually get what they demand, but only after their demands can one be supported by the industry, and two, worth less than they were five years ago because the dollar amount that they published is worth a lot less because of inflation. ( I think it is a good unity builder to state where you are going, but to publish a number then give the other side of the table something they can deflate over time) I would love for them to prove me and the rest of the world wrong. I would love to see them get an agreement today, because it makes our turn and UCAL's section six that much easier. Costs matter to the bean counters, and we are just a cost.
One last point. I know many litigators and negotiators for contracts outside of this industry. All of them state that they delay as long as they can to get the effect of inflation. It makes the dollars agreed to worth less. Carl, you may not like that point, but it is a tried and true tactic. Even FedEx did not get 100% restoration. That got two lump sum checks, one at signing and one at the amendable date, and they were different for each seat.
I want our team to take a long hard look at the industry, employ EFA and get a really good idea of what our corporation will be able to sign off on. I want a substantial raise, and six quarters of profitability will go along way towards that. I understand the desire for circuit breaker type compensation, but if we are to use those types of things, they need to be very robust, and not on the current level. I want discounted stock options, I want a min day, not a DPA (Duty Period Average) . I want Sections, 1, 3, 12, 23 (at a min) to be fixed, I want the sixth week of vacation back, I would like to see sick time improved, I would like to see disability benefits improved, I want my DC up to what HI, and CAL have. To assert that I am trying to manage your expectations, is just overly dramatic.
What I am stating is to understand where we are when section six opens. Not to not ask for a lot, but to understand what is needed for us to obtain it, what your other pilots demand, where the financial heath of the industry and our airline is, and do some serious thinking on the cost benefit of a nice gain but quickly with a shorter duration contract versus, sitting at the table and finally agreeing to an agreement at the same time we would be back at the table under option one.(Quickly fix CH 11 work rules, etc) Then Carl, look at the time value approach to both tactics and decide realistically, without 100% retro, which one will put more money in your pocket over the long term. Come to your own conclusions, we both have one vote.
11-23-2010, 05:54 AM
#2845
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
You talking about them soliciting offers for some airplanes, or the fact that AAI will be in the Guadalupe Holding company when it is acquired and not actually part of SWA? It would require the SWA guys to agree to a scope cutout of their hold on all of the domestic flying. Lots of interesting things going on over there.......
11-23-2010, 06:07 AM
#2846
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
It is a conversation, and not one sided. From their perspective they have a point. Many want a pension back too. We talk about a Pension in our names, or managed by ALPA, which btw many are not adverse too, we talk about a greater DC contribution. From their perspective they do not have the time to to wait it out. I do see that, even though I do. Many do not want to be under these work rules for five to seven more years. They know that better work rules and a 20% DC contribution will mask a real pay raise. They see hourly wages are only part of the equation.
I tell them what I can suspect will be doable, and it is a lot farther away from an inflationary raise. Of course it is my opinion only.
Carl quoted a lot of what I wrote, and I am glad he did. It never says what I want, even though he tried to play it that way. I think it is clear I was giving the position of pilots that have less than 10 years left here (53 or older) They want to get a nice bump, but do not want to sit locked at the table or parked by the NMB. These are also guys that are part of the silent majority that we hear about. They like incremental gains, and constructive engagement. They vote for their reps, but other than that are satisfied that DALPA is doing everything they can at every opportunity. They would love to have conditions right for a C2K restoration contract, but they are not going to hold their breath for it.
Every wants the career back. Things like consolidation, though painful, are needed to get corporations in a position to sign off on 2-3 billion dollar a year increases in pilot compensation. UCAL need to work for both sides of the fence. AMR is debt ridden and needs to marry LCC or B6. If they do not they will go in to CH 11 in the next down turn, and be very hard to compete with while they are under protection. We need to have three or four major carriers with route networks like ours so that we can keep the ULCC's at bay. (Route structures like ours all pricing power and the ability to keep the barriers to entry high for upstarts) So, yes it serves all pilots to go though the pain of consolidation. It will in the end allow wages and benefits to increase.
Argue the semantics of a post all day, but the fact is that if we get to far out ahead of everyone else, we are a easy target if another group does not pattern up. It would be great if pilot costs were fixed across the industry but they are not. That means that corporations, the NMB etc will look at the industry at a given point and then determine what is reasonable and what is not. Many do not like that, but that is reality. Carl, you can berate my points all day, but whether or not it is a professional negotiator with DPA, DALPA, USAPA, APA, IPA, SWAPA, etc, they are going to tell you the same thing. AMR is fighting the good fight, and it makes sense to wait for a good time to come to an agreement, but their pilots have been waiting for five years for an agreement. If they would have gotten X% four years ago, our JPWA would have patterned up, and they would be back at the table with a rational request for what they are demanding now. CALALPA may have agreed to something along the way to. The point is that for every agreement up to the CH 11 era, patterning of about 20% worked and was a tried and true method. I admire APA for doing what they are doing, and they will eventually get what they demand, but only after their demands can one be supported by the industry, and two, worth less than they were five years ago because the dollar amount that they published is worth a lot less because of inflation. ( I think it is a good unity builder to state where you are going, but to publish a number then give the other side of the table something they can deflate over time) I would love for them to prove me and the rest of the world wrong. I would love to see them get an agreement today, because it makes our turn and UCAL's section six that much easier. Costs matter to the bean counters, and we are just a cost.
One last point. I know many litigators and negotiators for contracts outside of this industry. All of them state that they delay as long as they can to get the effect of inflation. It makes the dollars agreed to worth less. Carl, you may not like that point, but it is a tried and true tactic. Even FedEx did not get 100% restoration. That got two lump sum checks, one at signing and one at the amendable date, and they were different for each seat.
I want our team to take a long hard look at the industry, employ EFA and get a really good idea of what our corporation will be able to sign off on. I want a substantial raise, and six quarters of profitability will go along way towards that. I understand the desire for circuit breaker type compensation, but if we are to use those types of things, they need to be very robust, and not on the current level. I want discounted stock options, I want a min day, not a DPA (Duty Period Average) . I want Sections, 1, 3, 12, 23 (at a min) to be fixed, I want the sixth week of vacation back, I would like to see sick time improved, I would like to see disability benefits improved, I want my DC up to what HI, and CAL have. To assert that I am trying to manage your expectations, is just overly dramatic.
What I am stating is to understand where we are when section six opens. Not to not ask for a lot, but to understand what is needed for us to obtain it, what your other pilots demand, where the financial heath of the industry and our airline is, and do some serious thinking on the cost benefit of a nice gain but quickly with a shorter duration contract versus, sitting at the table and finally agreeing to an agreement at the same time we would be back at the table under option one.(Quickly fix CH 11 work rules, etc) Then Carl, look at the time value approach to both tactics and decide realistically, without 100% retro, which one will put more money in your pocket over the long term. Come to your own conclusions, we both have one vote.
I tell them what I can suspect will be doable, and it is a lot farther away from an inflationary raise. Of course it is my opinion only.
Carl quoted a lot of what I wrote, and I am glad he did. It never says what I want, even though he tried to play it that way. I think it is clear I was giving the position of pilots that have less than 10 years left here (53 or older) They want to get a nice bump, but do not want to sit locked at the table or parked by the NMB. These are also guys that are part of the silent majority that we hear about. They like incremental gains, and constructive engagement. They vote for their reps, but other than that are satisfied that DALPA is doing everything they can at every opportunity. They would love to have conditions right for a C2K restoration contract, but they are not going to hold their breath for it.
Every wants the career back. Things like consolidation, though painful, are needed to get corporations in a position to sign off on 2-3 billion dollar a year increases in pilot compensation. UCAL need to work for both sides of the fence. AMR is debt ridden and needs to marry LCC or B6. If they do not they will go in to CH 11 in the next down turn, and be very hard to compete with while they are under protection. We need to have three or four major carriers with route networks like ours so that we can keep the ULCC's at bay. (Route structures like ours all pricing power and the ability to keep the barriers to entry high for upstarts) So, yes it serves all pilots to go though the pain of consolidation. It will in the end allow wages and benefits to increase.
Argue the semantics of a post all day, but the fact is that if we get to far out ahead of everyone else, we are a easy target if another group does not pattern up. It would be great if pilot costs were fixed across the industry but they are not. That means that corporations, the NMB etc will look at the industry at a given point and then determine what is reasonable and what is not. Many do not like that, but that is reality. Carl, you can berate my points all day, but whether or not it is a professional negotiator with DPA, DALPA, USAPA, APA, IPA, SWAPA, etc, they are going to tell you the same thing. AMR is fighting the good fight, and it makes sense to wait for a good time to come to an agreement, but their pilots have been waiting for five years for an agreement. If they would have gotten X% four years ago, our JPWA would have patterned up, and they would be back at the table with a rational request for what they are demanding now. CALALPA may have agreed to something along the way to. The point is that for every agreement up to the CH 11 era, patterning of about 20% worked and was a tried and true method. I admire APA for doing what they are doing, and they will eventually get what they demand, but only after their demands can one be supported by the industry, and two, worth less than they were five years ago because the dollar amount that they published is worth a lot less because of inflation. ( I think it is a good unity builder to state where you are going, but to publish a number then give the other side of the table something they can deflate over time) I would love for them to prove me and the rest of the world wrong. I would love to see them get an agreement today, because it makes our turn and UCAL's section six that much easier. Costs matter to the bean counters, and we are just a cost.
One last point. I know many litigators and negotiators for contracts outside of this industry. All of them state that they delay as long as they can to get the effect of inflation. It makes the dollars agreed to worth less. Carl, you may not like that point, but it is a tried and true tactic. Even FedEx did not get 100% restoration. That got two lump sum checks, one at signing and one at the amendable date, and they were different for each seat.
I want our team to take a long hard look at the industry, employ EFA and get a really good idea of what our corporation will be able to sign off on. I want a substantial raise, and six quarters of profitability will go along way towards that. I understand the desire for circuit breaker type compensation, but if we are to use those types of things, they need to be very robust, and not on the current level. I want discounted stock options, I want a min day, not a DPA (Duty Period Average) . I want Sections, 1, 3, 12, 23 (at a min) to be fixed, I want the sixth week of vacation back, I would like to see sick time improved, I would like to see disability benefits improved, I want my DC up to what HI, and CAL have. To assert that I am trying to manage your expectations, is just overly dramatic.
What I am stating is to understand where we are when section six opens. Not to not ask for a lot, but to understand what is needed for us to obtain it, what your other pilots demand, where the financial heath of the industry and our airline is, and do some serious thinking on the cost benefit of a nice gain but quickly with a shorter duration contract versus, sitting at the table and finally agreeing to an agreement at the same time we would be back at the table under option one.(Quickly fix CH 11 work rules, etc) Then Carl, look at the time value approach to both tactics and decide realistically, without 100% retro, which one will put more money in your pocket over the long term. Come to your own conclusions, we both have one vote.
The gains we achieve in this contract will be improved upon for years to come. If we accept anything less than "full restoration" then we will spend not only spend our upcoming contract working for less but probably all future contracts as well.
I really am unsure of your agenda but from your posts you must either desire a management position or are in hopes of following Moak's path.
11-23-2010, 06:24 AM
#2847
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Again it appears you are again trying to lower DAL pilots contract expectations...... ACL you are new to DAL and have only worked under a BK contract which you admit is better than where you were prior to DAL. But for most of us we have sacrificed a lot to get DAL in the position that it is today. Those of us on the North side even went on strike in 98 to get what we felt was fair. Like I tell my children some things in life are hard and giving up major gains in a contract to get one done fast is very short sighted.
Petty personal insults don't help your argument. You're better than that.
11-23-2010, 06:36 AM
#2848
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
All I can tell you is that you are wrong. The initial CH 11 contract was horrible. The ability to reset rates on operational profit or not was horrible. What we have is an improvement, but we have a long way to go, no one discredits that. If you think for one minute I am satisfied with where we are you are wrong. There can and will be a ton of improvement, but I want it backed up with hard EFA data. I suspect it will be as ALPA's EF and A department is as best as they come. I also want AMR and UCAL to get their contracts done, so we have something to work off of.
As you stated last night, they are not needed, but I submit that it makes our job a lot easier if they do. You think that it is short sighted, and I see it as a one-two punch at the same goal ending up with the same result at the same time, but with some significant gains quickly. I do not see how that is managing expectations down, but it is your right to call me that, I will respectfully disagree.
You are correct, in the fact that I was not here under the old contracts, but that does not mean that I do not want to get to that point again. What it does mean is that I do not want to repeat history, were taken advantage of in the 1113C process. I want smart and effective agreements that quickly build on each other to form a solid foundation and structure that withstand the earthquakes of this industry. That is just good strategic thinking. If it fails in the rhetoric category, too bad.
As you stated last night, they are not needed, but I submit that it makes our job a lot easier if they do. You think that it is short sighted, and I see it as a one-two punch at the same goal ending up with the same result at the same time, but with some significant gains quickly. I do not see how that is managing expectations down, but it is your right to call me that, I will respectfully disagree.
You are correct, in the fact that I was not here under the old contracts, but that does not mean that I do not want to get to that point again. What it does mean is that I do not want to repeat history, were taken advantage of in the 1113C process. I want smart and effective agreements that quickly build on each other to form a solid foundation and structure that withstand the earthquakes of this industry. That is just good strategic thinking. If it fails in the rhetoric category, too bad.
11-23-2010, 06:38 AM
#2849
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
AMR [I assume you meant the APA?] is fighting the good fight, and it makes sense to wait for a good time to come to an agreement, but their pilots have been waiting for five years for an agreement. If they would have gotten X% four years ago, our JPWA would have patterned up, and they would be back at the table with a rational request for what they are demanding now.
I want more money, just like they do. But screaming doesn't get you more. Just ask yourself how that works with your own 3 year old...
11-23-2010, 06:46 AM
#2850
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
acl's post was dead on accurate (except the part about admiring the APA group; I don't). But I've got words for you -- no one that matters cares what we USED to get paid; or that we sacrificed a lot. We are where we are; and we will achieve what we can achieve. How that compares to what we USED to be able to achieve, or USED to get paid, is totally irrelevant.
And if we demand "full restoration" but can't obtain it, in the present legal and economic climate what have we achieved? I'm not saying we can't achieve full restoration, it will depend on DAL's financial condition and other airline's pilot payrates, as well as the economic conditions at the time. We might get it, we might get more, we might get less. But looking in the rear view mirror to hit a target will pretty much guarantee you aren't going to hit it!
Petty personal insults don't help your argument. You're better than that.
I do get where he is coming from. I get his frustration, we all are frustrated. We all want the same thing, it is the means and methodology that differ. If you take away anything from this NWA320, get that. We have the same goals, and inflationary raises as an opener are not it. Can we put that curd to bed? I was merely pointing out what a few WB A's are thinking.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
