Delta Pilots Association
08-11-2011, 07:42 AM
#5811
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Your point was you wanted a union for each of the pilot groups or something. If I remember correctly? So I probably said no, bad idea. The only thing consistent with the pilot group is that they are Delta pilots, hence one union to represent all is required and not one to represent senior DTW A330 As hired between 1986 and 1987 versus NYC 7ER Bs hired directly into the aircraft. It's nonsensical.
So if that's what you're referring to then my previous post and this post are absolutely consistent.
If you negotiate for the benefit of one group it can and probably will be detrimental to another. Therefore, you don't favor one over the other... as in we're all Delta pilots no matter where they sit or how long they've sat there.
For example, a pay raise in exchange for a scope sale would be good for a senior pilot not immediately effected by a scope sale but immediately detrimental for a pilot beneath them all the way to those who are furloughed. To reiterate, a pay raise for one pilots family could cost another pilots family their sole income. Not acceptable.
The mission is not to lose a job from pilot 1 to pilot plug and then raise the pay from there. You can negotiate differing pay tables based on the philosophy size matters or mission type matters and so on if the objective is fairness, but you don't negotiate for the benefit of one pilot and force another pilot out of a job.
You agree?
So if that's what you're referring to then my previous post and this post are absolutely consistent.
If you negotiate for the benefit of one group it can and probably will be detrimental to another. Therefore, you don't favor one over the other... as in we're all Delta pilots no matter where they sit or how long they've sat there.
For example, a pay raise in exchange for a scope sale would be good for a senior pilot not immediately effected by a scope sale but immediately detrimental for a pilot beneath them all the way to those who are furloughed. To reiterate, a pay raise for one pilots family could cost another pilots family their sole income. Not acceptable.
The mission is not to lose a job from pilot 1 to pilot plug and then raise the pay from there. You can negotiate differing pay tables based on the philosophy size matters or mission type matters and so on if the objective is fairness, but you don't negotiate for the benefit of one pilot and force another pilot out of a job.
You agree?
You agree?
08-11-2011, 07:46 AM
#5812
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Here is a theoretical question;
Say ALPA represents 5000 Taternuts Air mainline pilots and 5000 Taternuts Express Connection regional pilots.
Taternut mainline pilots in their contract survey and in meetings around the system decide they want better scope and are willing to be "more efficient" to get it. They're not even demanding anything but a COLA increase in pay.
The company, reading the Latest and Greatest Taternuts forum sees that's what the pilots want and calculates that by doing that they could reduce Taternuts Express Connection by 50% with a modest increase in the number of mainline pilots by 500. They could save a lot of money. They're excited.
So this would make the total pilots required is 8,000. Not 10,000. In essence it would be a scope recapture that reduced the total number of pilots ALPA represented by 2,000 and that would be at the Taternuts Express Connection level.
Would ALPA National allow that to make it to a TA?
Would ALPA National be able to "persuade" the Taternuts mainline MEC to find another way?
Could Taternuts Express Connection's ALPA MEC sue ALPA National for allowing that to happen?
----
I bring this up because for some reason I doubt if you were getting a divorce you'd want to share a lawyer with your spouse? That's kind of a no brainer.
But would you, the debonair rich pilot with lots and lots of expensive stuff and a propensity for checking out real underboob on overnights, hire a lawyer from the same law firm she did?
Say ALPA represents 5000 Taternuts Air mainline pilots and 5000 Taternuts Express Connection regional pilots.
Taternut mainline pilots in their contract survey and in meetings around the system decide they want better scope and are willing to be "more efficient" to get it. They're not even demanding anything but a COLA increase in pay.
The company, reading the Latest and Greatest Taternuts forum sees that's what the pilots want and calculates that by doing that they could reduce Taternuts Express Connection by 50% with a modest increase in the number of mainline pilots by 500. They could save a lot of money. They're excited.
So this would make the total pilots required is 8,000. Not 10,000. In essence it would be a scope recapture that reduced the total number of pilots ALPA represented by 2,000 and that would be at the Taternuts Express Connection level.
Would ALPA National allow that to make it to a TA?
Would ALPA National be able to "persuade" the Taternuts mainline MEC to find another way?
Could Taternuts Express Connection's ALPA MEC sue ALPA National for allowing that to happen?
----
I bring this up because for some reason I doubt if you were getting a divorce you'd want to share a lawyer with your spouse? That's kind of a no brainer.
But would you, the debonair rich pilot with lots and lots of expensive stuff and a propensity for checking out real underboob on overnights, hire a lawyer from the same law firm she did?
After all, you want her to have 0% per the prenupt and will pay your lawyer an hourly fee to ensure that but that same law firm knows she can easily win per a loophole and if she does they get 40% of everything and it's so so much more than what you'll pay.
So do you really think your lawyer won't be directed from on high to, I don't know, manage your grand expectations and get used to the prenuptial not meaning what it says?
08-11-2011, 07:53 AM
#5813
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Your anti-alpa bias is showing. Unfortunately facts tend to disagree with your "recollection". The "union" didn't end the flow thru. An enhanced flow thru was not negotiated under the 03/04?? contract. CAL took the pilots who had class dates scheduled before 9/11 (schindlers list). The original flow thru sunset once coex was spun off (under the provisions of the original flow thru agreement). I enjoy reading your posts but please don't let your bias unfactually tarnish hard working union volunteers.
08-11-2011, 07:57 AM
#5814
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You could argue that LEC reps then shouldn't be chosen just by base and seat but by some other more representative matrix.
Because it could be very dangerous for many pilots if those bargaining are in agreement with their particular constituency, say the negotiators or the powers that be are in the top 5% and they negotiate something extremely beneficial to them at the expense of 95%. Extrapolate that out to something for the top 15% but hurts 85%. Or, say the best and brightest negotiating team sits at 50%, and the 45-55% range gets something that hurts those above and below.
Now let's say the negotiating team is less nefarious than that but the TA offers is still basically the same lopsided result.
I'm not sure but maybe you and I are in more of an agreement than we know.
08-11-2011, 08:10 AM
#5816
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Retired, again...
Posts: 608
If the premise of your question is that pilots from different groups within the seniority list have different objectives then by all means yes there are powerful conflicts.
You could argue that LEC reps then shouldn't be chosen just by base and seat but by some other more representative matrix.
Because it could be very dangerous for many pilots if those bargaining are in agreement with their particular constituency, say the negotiators or the powers that be are in the top 5% and they negotiate something extremely beneficial to them at the expense of 95%. Extrapolate that out to something for the top 15% but hurts 85%. Or, say the best and brightest negotiating team sits at 50%, and the 45-55% range gets something that hurts those above and below.
Now let's say the negotiating team is less nefarious than that but the TA offers is still basically the same lopsided result.
I'm not sure but maybe you and I are in more of an agreement than we know.
You could argue that LEC reps then shouldn't be chosen just by base and seat but by some other more representative matrix.
Because it could be very dangerous for many pilots if those bargaining are in agreement with their particular constituency, say the negotiators or the powers that be are in the top 5% and they negotiate something extremely beneficial to them at the expense of 95%. Extrapolate that out to something for the top 15% but hurts 85%. Or, say the best and brightest negotiating team sits at 50%, and the 45-55% range gets something that hurts those above and below.
Now let's say the negotiating team is less nefarious than that but the TA offers is still basically the same lopsided result.
I'm not sure but maybe you and I are in more of an agreement than we know.
My last Alpa gig had block reps elected by graduated seniority blocks for each local council....instuctors/ check airmen had a separate block. That seemed to balance the conflicts of senior vs junior . Thoughts ?
Regards,
BG
08-11-2011, 08:22 AM
#5817
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Here is a theoretical question;
Say ALPA represents 5000 Taternuts Air mainline pilots and 5000 Taternuts Express Connection regional pilots.
Taternut mainline pilots in their contract survey and in meetings around the system decide they want better scope and are willing to be "more efficient" to get it. They're not even demanding anything but a COLA increase in pay.
The company, reading the Latest and Greatest Taternuts forum sees that's what the pilots want and calculates that by doing that they could reduce Taternuts Express Connection by 50% with a modest increase in the number of mainline pilots by 500. They could save a lot of money. They're excited.
So this would make the total pilots required is 8,000. Not 10,000. In essence it would be a scope recapture that reduced the total number of pilots ALPA represented by 2,000 and that would be at the Taternuts Express Connection level.
Would ALPA National allow that to make it to a TA?
Would ALPA National be able to "persuade" the Taternuts mainline MEC to find another way?
Could Taternuts Express Connection's ALPA MEC sue ALPA National for allowing that to happen?
----
I bring this up because for some reason I doubt if you were getting a divorce you'd want to share a lawyer with your spouse? That's kind of a no brainer.
But would you, the debonair rich pilot with lots and lots of expensive stuff and a propensity for checking out real underboob on overnights, hire a lawyer from the same law firm she did?
Say ALPA represents 5000 Taternuts Air mainline pilots and 5000 Taternuts Express Connection regional pilots.
Taternut mainline pilots in their contract survey and in meetings around the system decide they want better scope and are willing to be "more efficient" to get it. They're not even demanding anything but a COLA increase in pay.
The company, reading the Latest and Greatest Taternuts forum sees that's what the pilots want and calculates that by doing that they could reduce Taternuts Express Connection by 50% with a modest increase in the number of mainline pilots by 500. They could save a lot of money. They're excited.
So this would make the total pilots required is 8,000. Not 10,000. In essence it would be a scope recapture that reduced the total number of pilots ALPA represented by 2,000 and that would be at the Taternuts Express Connection level.
Would ALPA National allow that to make it to a TA?
Would ALPA National be able to "persuade" the Taternuts mainline MEC to find another way?
Could Taternuts Express Connection's ALPA MEC sue ALPA National for allowing that to happen?
----
I bring this up because for some reason I doubt if you were getting a divorce you'd want to share a lawyer with your spouse? That's kind of a no brainer.
But would you, the debonair rich pilot with lots and lots of expensive stuff and a propensity for checking out real underboob on overnights, hire a lawyer from the same law firm she did?
After all, you want her to have 0% per the prenupt and will pay your lawyer an hourly fee to ensure that but that same law firm knows she can easily win per a loophole and if she does they get 40% of everything and it's so so much more than what you'll pay.
So do you really think your lawyer won't be directed from on high to, I don't know, manage your grand expectations and get used to the prenuptial not meaning what it says?Mainline pilots can negotiate contracts that make them more competitive against other mainline pilot groups, and ALPA has no problem with that. So why would ALPA have a problem with mainline recapturing scope into higher dues paying jobs? Even if the total membership number was lower as a result, a full roster of perpetual predatory bargaining isn't a sustainable foundation even from a dues collecting standpoint anyway.
But let them withold signature on it because they are worried about their numbers. Just let them try, and watch as their numbers plummet, 5 figures at a time.
08-11-2011, 08:24 AM
#5818
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Well, mostly.
Check
Check
[Sound of brakes screeching] Whoa. What did we improve in scope, and how many jobs did it bring back to mainline? And while "higher compensation" is a technically accurate statement, it was essentially a COLA to our bankruptcy/emergency rates. Buying power consistent with our bankruptcy contract... certainly nothing to crow about.
Yep. Not rocket science. But there is more to it than that. And using the measures of buying power and mainline pilot jobs, we haven't gained much if anything at all. And when did we come out of BK? 2007? And how much did Delta make last year? And how much did SWA's average Captain and F/O make last year?
Check
Check
[Sound of brakes screeching] Whoa. What did we improve in scope, and how many jobs did it bring back to mainline? And while "higher compensation" is a technically accurate statement, it was essentially a COLA to our bankruptcy/emergency rates. Buying power consistent with our bankruptcy contract... certainly nothing to crow about.
Yep. Not rocket science. But there is more to it than that. And using the measures of buying power and mainline pilot jobs, we haven't gained much if anything at all. And when did we come out of BK? 2007? And how much did Delta make last year? And how much did SWA's average Captain and F/O make last year?
08-11-2011, 09:15 AM
#5819
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
I'd be great if no more airline union groups enter BK without post-BK snapback phase-in's of some kind when they "give for the good of the company". Peg restoration to management compensation packages/profitability or something!!! No more of this "its the new reality" BS.
08-11-2011, 09:30 AM
#5820
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Like!
I'd be great if no more airline union groups enter BK without post-BK snapback phase-in's of some kind when they "give for the good of the company". Peg restoration to management compensation packages/profitability or something!!! No more of this "its the new reality" BS.
I'd be great if no more airline union groups enter BK without post-BK snapback phase-in's of some kind when they "give for the good of the company". Peg restoration to management compensation packages/profitability or something!!! No more of this "its the new reality" BS.
I can't tell you exactly where this came from (well, I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you
)... but this is what a prominent DAL exec said in response to the suggestion that our pay should be restored to 2004 levels: "We didn’t need temporary relief due to a short-term issue – we needed to reform our business so that we are profitable." That's the mentality we're dealing with. And what really scares me is that it appears to also be the mentality of some on our MEC and on important committees like Strategic Planning. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
