Delta Pilots Association
01-17-2011, 07:11 AM
#4111
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Not to change the subject, but what is the time line with the DPA? We are currently beginning preparations for contract 2012. If we had a representational vote and ALPA appeal, we are talking, what 2015 or later for a contract?
Demographically, the DPA is going to have to get a move on. If it continues to languish the timing will delay the contract that our senior pilots are counting on in the home stretch towards retirement.
Demographically, the DPA is going to have to get a move on. If it continues to languish the timing will delay the contract that our senior pilots are counting on in the home stretch towards retirement.
01-17-2011, 07:25 AM
#4112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
It's funny you talk of very low opinions, while just a few pages back you were trying to convince us all how little the airline pilot professional is actually worth.
I flew with ALPA negotiators and with management types while all this was going down and they both were operating from the same sheet of music. They used fear to get what they wanted. Fear is a very powerful tool.
I agree with 88 that facts should be given. Their opinion on the result of voting "no" should be withheld. I don't to this day think management or a judge would have burned this company down over the 76 seater. From what I understand that was the last item to negotiate. Our negotiators caved. It never should have made it to memrat.
I flew with ALPA negotiators and with management types while all this was going down and they both were operating from the same sheet of music. They used fear to get what they wanted. Fear is a very powerful tool.
I agree with 88 that facts should be given. Their opinion on the result of voting "no" should be withheld. I don't to this day think management or a judge would have burned this company down over the 76 seater. From what I understand that was the last item to negotiate. Our negotiators caved. It never should have made it to memrat.
It was in fact the last item negotiated. What you have to consider however is that the aircraft was already permitted under LOA 46 and already in service with Delta with 69 seats. The question was would a judge make Delta fly the aircraft around with less then optimal seating while trying to emerge from Chapter 11. I don't think that was a issue we were going to win. The agreement also increased the numbers but again I think the judge would have ruled for the Company. Remember that shortly before Delta management had somehow managed to have Judge Prudance removed from the case and her replacement was a hard core anti labor Bush judge.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.
01-17-2011, 07:28 AM
#4113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
Not to change the subject, but what is the time line with the DPA? We are currently beginning preparations for contract 2012. If we had a representational vote and ALPA appeal, we are talking, what 2015 or later for a contract?
Demographically, the DPA is going to have to get a move on. If it continues to languish the timing will delay the contract that our senior pilots are counting on in the home stretch towards retirement.
Demographically, the DPA is going to have to get a move on. If it continues to languish the timing will delay the contract that our senior pilots are counting on in the home stretch towards retirement.
When they did not meet their timeline it looks like they simply pulled it from the website.
01-17-2011, 09:00 AM
#4115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
It was in fact the last item negotiated. What you have to consider however is that the aircraft was already permitted under LOA 46 and already in service with Delta with 69 seats. The question was would a judge make Delta fly the aircraft around with less then optimal seating while trying to emerge from Chapter 11. I don't think that was a issue we were going to win. The agreement also increased the numbers but again I think the judge would have ruled for the Company. Remember that shortly before Delta management had somehow managed to have Judge Prudance removed from the case and her replacement was a hard core anti labor Bush judge.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.
My point is that once management and the judge saw the resolve, they would have dropped the 76 seat request. Six seats wasn't worth possible liquidation. We blinked, they didn't. Just because they buy airplanes with that capability, doesn't mean we are obligated to give them what they ask for. I remember the same scenario in C2K with the 70 seater. You are using the same logic that the Malone admin used. An admin, you are often critical of regarding scope, yet you seem to overlook LM's admin.
There was nothing that said they couldn't fly them, the issue was who flies the 76 seater. There were many mainline furloughees that would have gladly taken that seat.
It's all water under the bridge and many ifs and buts from both sides of the argument. I am not saying I am 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.
01-17-2011, 09:23 AM
#4116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
"I recorded a video last week that further addresses scope. It should be in
your V-file soon."
"We will work to continue the current trends: increasing mainline (domestic and international) ASMs, increasing mainline aircraft and hiring pilots. "
01-17-2011, 09:27 AM
#4117
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I just got a very nice and thoughtful e-mail response from him. Highlights:
"I recorded a video last week that further addresses scope. It should be in
your V-file soon."
"We will work to continue the current trends: increasing mainline (domestic and international) ASMs, increasing mainline aircraft and hiring pilots. "
"I recorded a video last week that further addresses scope. It should be in
your V-file soon."
"We will work to continue the current trends: increasing mainline (domestic and international) ASMs, increasing mainline aircraft and hiring pilots. "
I heard that something like this was going to be coming out.
How much you want to bet that Carl is still going to be ticked at the video?
01-17-2011, 09:30 AM
#4118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
"If we vote no, the contract will be thrown out" is what I heard time and time again from both sides. I heard that also from management types after 9-11, basically end-game in bankruptcy. IOW, it was the main play in their playbook. I believe we should have walked away at the negotiating table and tested it. If the company wants to throw out the contract over 76 seats, let them try. We would then exercise our rights under the RLA. You may argue the judge would force us back to work. I believe we could have fought and won that battle.
My point is that once management and the judge saw the resolve, they would have dropped the 76 seat request. Six seats wasn't worth possible liquidation. We blinked, they didn't. Just because they buy airplanes with that capability, doesn't mean we are obligated to give them what they ask for. I remember the same scenario in C2K with the 70 seater. You are using the same logic that the Malone admin used. An admin, you are often critical of regarding scope, yet you seem to overlook LM's admin.
There was nothing that said they couldn't fly them, the issue was who flies the 76 seater. There were many mainline furloughees that would have gladly taken that seat.
It's all water under the bridge and many ifs and buts from both sides of the argument. I am not saying I am 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.
My point is that once management and the judge saw the resolve, they would have dropped the 76 seat request. Six seats wasn't worth possible liquidation. We blinked, they didn't. Just because they buy airplanes with that capability, doesn't mean we are obligated to give them what they ask for. I remember the same scenario in C2K with the 70 seater. You are using the same logic that the Malone admin used. An admin, you are often critical of regarding scope, yet you seem to overlook LM's admin.
There was nothing that said they couldn't fly them, the issue was who flies the 76 seater. There were many mainline furloughees that would have gladly taken that seat.
It's all water under the bridge and many ifs and buts from both sides of the argument. I am not saying I am 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.
First I voted no on the agreement for many reasons. However I am not sure what rights you think we had under the RLA. We did not have the right to strike even if the judge imposed a contract. You have a right to strike if management imposes a contract after going through the normal negotiations process. That does not apply in a 1113 situation. The judges first priority is to the creditors. The company was asking him for 86 seats. I think they would have been granted that. As many have pointed out it would have been very hard to push that back down in the next contract. The judge would have never made them fly around a 76 seat aircraft with 7 missing seats. We made the big mistake in allowing the aircraft under LOA 46.
01-17-2011, 09:42 AM
#4119
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Why don't any of the union types ever say this? All we ever hear (from BK and such) is a justification of the actions, and never any admission of fault or that it was not a good choice.
That is a good 80% of my issue with them... not taking any fault= they have the complete inability to see what was wrong with the actions taken, and following from that the inability to make corrective action in the future.
That is a good 80% of my issue with them... not taking any fault= they have the complete inability to see what was wrong with the actions taken, and following from that the inability to make corrective action in the future.
01-17-2011, 09:48 AM
#4120
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
