DAWGS

I had opportunity to get to know JM many years ago. He is a top notch individual. I must say I don't understand the vitriol for a man who negotiated the highest paying contract in airline history for our group. Whomever he supports has no bearing on his accomplishments (alpa/dpa). I wish we had more like him now working for us. My own personal feelings are he was shown the door once he wasn't willing to give anymore. Gave-indeed he did. I feel I would have done the same with the knowledge at the time. Those are tough decisions when your company is at stake.

When our company was making billions, JM got the job done. And yes others deserve credit too. I do know through our conversations, he was very level headed and felt the pilots deserved their rightful due. Today's ALPA leaders haven't even defined rightful due for our group. He produced big in good times. Can the current ALPA do the same? When we are making over 1B a year, that's good times!

DAL 88 Driver

Excellent post, DAWGS! Just excellent!!!

DAL 88 Driver

this!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wasatch Phantom

I too have great respect for JM.

With the benefit of hindsight, contract 2000 was negotiated as the economy was heading downhill. The Delta pilots had also labored under a contract, known as POS '96, which was a very concessionary contract. I would say the general mood of the pilots was one of great expectations, particularly after the United pilots negotiated a strong contract.

So while the financial burden of Contract 2000 started having a deleterious effect on earnings right away, part of that was because of the economy itself.

Yes, JM was also MEC Chairman during the givebacks prior to bankruptcy. And, again with the benefit of hindsight, Delta was bleeding pretty badly for quite a while prior to those huge givebacks. But a historical perspective is insightful:

Shortly after POS '96 was ratified Delta started making money in a big way. Then Leo Mullin replaced Ron Allen as CEO and DALPA approached him about mid-contract pay increases. Leo's response was the (in)famous "No, a contract is a contract". So with that background, and with the funding of "bankruptcy proof" pensions for a select group of senior executives (as Delta was hemorrhaging money), when Delta approached DALPA about concessions, how do you think that went over?

However my recollection during all of these negotiations is that the various offers by the company and DALPA were in large part communicated to the Delta pilots.

My personal opinion is there is a GREAT deal of mistrust of DALPA by a significant percentage (indeed, if not the majority) of Delta pilots. (The whole FPL cover-up issue gives them cause to feel this way.)

If DALPA chooses not to communicate with the membership the various offers and then offers a lame tentative agreement with the "...this is the best we could do" excuse... that may be the end of DALPA.

Bucking Bar

Good, excellent even, post. But, what happens next? If ALPA gets what you consider a "lame TA" and gets booted, what then? (not saying they will and everyone's definition of "lame" is different) Just curious, how would the DPA would achieve a better result? If the DPA could do it, why wouldn't ALPA do the same thing to ensure their own survival? If the answer is obvious, then they'll probably do whatever they can to maximize the TA (for us and "them").

bigbusdriver

Forgot the Delta Dot already? We were first and UAL used the dot (777) to set the bar higher then USAirways set the highest pay of all $330 for the 330. If we are going to play hindsight then lets look at everything you said here. History stands a chance to repeat itself based on what you wrote. Delta had billion dollar earnings in 1999 and 2000. That's only two years in a row. Delta just made similar money in 2010 and 2011, but it's only two years in a row. You said our contract started to chip away at the earnings and then we all know the downward spiral continued. You then go on to say that the give backs were okay because they were communicated properly? What I now see is the same situation ten years later. We are asking for the lion's share of the earnings while not providing the company with a way to get out if something goes bad. Do we bleed the company dry at the first sign of profits or do we work to ensure they continue to make profits and we make money with them? Remember we did not give back anything from C2K for three full years after 9/11. We then arranged to keep furloughed pilots on the street longer while allowing some of the 2500 Captains to stay and earn more money. I agree that hindsight can be used here and it doesn't look good to a furloughed pilot at this point. PBS was implemented in LOA #46 requiring even less pilots.

If pilots can sit on this board and snipe at any MEC Chairman for what they did, then this guy is just as open to being talked about. He is responsible because he was in charge. I voted no, but it didn't matter. The yes voters won and the company still went bankrupt. We are still trying to recover from LOA #46. Look at the recent LOA that got rid of FO OE recovery flying. It took us seven years to get back one LOA #46 item. I would have held the line to bankruptcy court and done battle there, but that too is hindsight. As is the steady progression we have made since LOA #46. LOA #46 was the reset of the baseline, not bankruptcy court. We got billions back in bankruptcy. Billions we gave up under bad times but not under duress like bankruptcy court.

The mission now is to discuss whether we repeat history. I remember him getting upset about using DALPA because he thought it appeared like we were separate from ALPA and he didn't want that. Now he does want to be separate. There's more to this story than meets the eye. Do we break the bank or do we meet half way? You tell me because, it has all happened before and it will all happen again. Now about that USAirways "highest paid in the industry" $330 per hour on the A330. How's that working out?

bigbusdriver

Dude! That's how a forum (a conversation between two or more people) works. You bring up a point and I bring up another and we discuss. We don't just cyber bully the other guy until he gives up. You don't want me to add facts or change the topic midstream? What are you going to do if I don't play by Carl's rules? Harangue? Ridicule? Ask the Mods to suspend my account? If you don't want to discuss both the pros and the cons of an argument perhaps you should stick to annoying the other three guys in your bubble. We have a different view of the same guy. I gave you facts. You distorted them. Typical M.O. from everything I have read on the other guys website. You want the current MEC to get back things your guy from a different MEC helped to give back. That's where we are. You think your guys can get back the LOA #46 concessions while management knows they already have a 60/40 vote split thanks to you. That split in votes has already cost me money out of my pocket because of your actions just like the former NWA MEC Chairman cost us all a pay increase and DC contribution by delaying the original vote on the JCBA. Ask TT for a copy of the first TA that never got signed. Ask him how many millions got left on the table for all of us because of one man.

bigbusdriver

Yes he got the job done when Delta made money and he got the job done when Delta lost money. On one hand he beat management and on the other hand he worked with management. Some could even say that LOAs #44, 45, and 46 were constructive engagement as he worked with management. So, which one is he going to be in JM2.0? The one that beats management or works with them?

Wasatch Phantom

Bar,

I think it's fair to say each of us has our own definitions of what is an acceptable, versus an unacceptable, TA.

I also think it's also fair to say many Delta pilots are very concerned about DALPA's communications (more correctly the lack of communications).

Several forum members have argued persuasively for DALPA to communicate their contract objectives, such as restoration of payrates, reigning in the Alaska codeshare (abuse), improvements to scope, etc, etc. But there hasn't been a defining mission statement at all.

Perhaps this isn't fair, but my opinion is their communications seem to be about managing pilot's expectations (lower).

Again this is historical, but the spectrum has typically been defined by the company at one end, with DALPA at the other end. The pilots in general would be somewhere in between.

However just like an inverted yield curve, it seems we have an "inverted spectrum" with the company at one end, the Delta pilots at the other end, with DALPA in between.

I honestly don't know if DPA could negotiate a better contract than DALPA. I am concerned about setting low goals and I'm very troubled by DALPA's processes. ACL and others frequently post about "change from within". If there has been any change, it is at an unacceptably slow pace.

I do believe that DPA would do a better job of communicating with Delta pilots. I also believe their mission would be to further the interests of the Delta pilots, and only the Delta pilots, without the conflicts of interests (potential or otherwise) at ALPA National.

Further, while the ALPA supporters tout the resources at ALPA National that are available to us, I am very underwhelmed by their performance. Our contractual language has left several loopholes that the company has exploited. If ALPA National's attorneys are so wonderful, why do these loopholes exist? Yes they can be closed, but we will spend negotiating capital fixing the mistakes created by ALPA National's attorneys. Quite simply that's unacceptable by any standard.

So when DALPA supporters say "Trust us, we know what's best..." I, like many others, am very skeptical.

I'm approching my mid-fifties. I can't afford (another) mediocre contract.

DAL 88 Driver

Ditto. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^