DAL early retirement 2009/2011
04-23-2011, 05:28 PM
#71
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
No, word parser, you are having difficulty with reading comprehension.
I said management made an argument.
I didn't say the court bought the argument. We never found out the result, because prior to the ruling of the 3-man neutral panel or an 1113 rejection we got LOA-51. I believe that management's argument was legally correct, but also believe the letter was helpful in establishing management's "character" in front of the court.
I said the letter gave us some leverage. Not much, but a little, in helping get to a consensual deal. That deal was far better than the consensual deal that any other legacy MEC in bankruptcy had been able to achieve.
If I've typed too fast for you, I'll try to slow down even more...
I said management made an argument.
I didn't say the court bought the argument. We never found out the result, because prior to the ruling of the 3-man neutral panel or an 1113 rejection we got LOA-51. I believe that management's argument was legally correct, but also believe the letter was helpful in establishing management's "character" in front of the court.
I said the letter gave us some leverage. Not much, but a little, in helping get to a consensual deal. That deal was far better than the consensual deal that any other legacy MEC in bankruptcy had been able to achieve.
If I've typed too fast for you, I'll try to slow down even more...
It was under Malone's watch that LOA 46 (which contained the Bankruptcy Protection Letter) was hawked. When management filed BK and sought to reject our contract through section 1113, they made the point that the BPL was part of our contract. It would be rejected too, as it was a pre-petition contract.
That revelation aside, you also have a terrible problem focusing if there is more than one sentence. So the next post will be devoted to just the one question that I've now asked twice and got nothing but nothing from you. Standby for just one sentence.
Carl
04-23-2011, 05:48 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
04-23-2011, 06:05 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
04-23-2011, 06:20 PM
#77
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
04-23-2011, 06:32 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Take the gloves off?
No strike committee active under JM.
No DPN/P2P/Family Awareness under JM.
Refusal to testify during our 1113. Even retired pilots did that.
Tried to keep a PRP as a voting member for his election.
Delayed the election when it was clear he was going to lose.
He did nothing to protect the pension. After the liquidity shortfall he put out a communique that the pension was fine and lump sums wouldn't affect it. Our pension never paid a lump sum again.
Gloves off? Right...
No strike committee active under JM.
No DPN/P2P/Family Awareness under JM.
Refusal to testify during our 1113. Even retired pilots did that.
Tried to keep a PRP as a voting member for his election.
Delayed the election when it was clear he was going to lose.
He did nothing to protect the pension. After the liquidity shortfall he put out a communique that the pension was fine and lump sums wouldn't affect it. Our pension never paid a lump sum again.
Gloves off? Right...
04-23-2011, 06:55 PM
#79
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
During my tenure at DAL (20+ years) the best (inflation adjusted) payrates I've experienced, as well as the best work rules, were those from contract 2000. John Malone was largely responsible for that contract (Negotiating Committee Chairman, IIRC).
My recollection is that Letter 50 (which included the 32.5% paycut and some work rule changes) was a sincere attempt to stave off bankruptcy (Remember Grinstein's "Do it once, and do it right mantra).
Just as Lee Moak "gets a pass" by many because of membership ratification, in the same vein John Malone should "get a pass" as Delta pilots supported the cuts Letter 50 contained.
My personal opinion is Malone would not have agreed to the the terms of Letter 51 which included the additional 14% pay cut and the 76 seat scope giveaway (my term). Lee Moak was responsible for those.
If my memory is off, feel free to correct it...
My recollection is that Letter 50 (which included the 32.5% paycut and some work rule changes) was a sincere attempt to stave off bankruptcy (Remember Grinstein's "Do it once, and do it right mantra).
Just as Lee Moak "gets a pass" by many because of membership ratification, in the same vein John Malone should "get a pass" as Delta pilots supported the cuts Letter 50 contained.
My personal opinion is Malone would not have agreed to the the terms of Letter 51 which included the additional 14% pay cut and the 76 seat scope giveaway (my term). Lee Moak was responsible for those.
If my memory is off, feel free to correct it...
I think Letter 50 (and the disregard of the Bankruptcy Protection Letter that didn't really provide any bankruptcy protection
) came into being during Lee Moak's tenure.
04-23-2011, 07:23 PM
#80
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
