The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-12-2012, 04:03 AM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
T,
I fully admit that my projections down the road are 100% pure speculation. They have not happened, and may not happen. I am stating what would be contractually allowed given the language.
You should ask yourself why I of all people am willing to send this back? Doesn't makes sense eh? You always think I have more info than I am sharing. I can tell you that even if you want to call it all speculation, its based on some good logic.
All I am really willing to put out there is that this TA is the hurdle that the company needs to go over to start a series of events that will be really good for them, and possibly for us. It will make DAL the logical leader for a decade or more. This deal needs to be done first. Plan B that everyone states is without us, is not really without us. There are many parts of it that the company will look to us and ALPA for help with. They will need our help because the number of players is getting smaller. Our support is paramount. Plan be costs a lot more money and us much less preferred. Will they do that out of spite? Ask yourself a rhetorical question; Is this an emotional decision or a business decision based on number for them? I can tell ya that Plan A is a lot cheaper, and preferred by a long shot. At this point we have leverage. Going forward though two to four events and maybe one JPWA we end up at a point where the mergers are done and leverage without a lengthy time frame is gone.
The time to do this stuff is now. This TA basically will allow many things in a merger that we will not need to negotiate. In other words leverage will be lower than it is today.
If this is voted down, no one can promise with 100% certainty what path the company will take. I will not, but I will tell you that it will be a business decision, and a exercise on math. Given what I see a must fix; as well as others, it still going to be cheaper dealing with us that going with plan B. The scenario based posts I have made are merely a way to illustrate where the language could fail or where we set ourselves up to need to use future leverage that will effect the outcome in other areas.
The work rule changes are the most confusing if there is going to be a merger or acquisition where we take pilots. They will cost positions on the list because it will take less pilots for the same block hr plan. 30-60 minutes a month seems inconsequential, but when you multiply that by 10500 active line pilots, the number of less pilots needed starts to add up.
You do not have to believe me, and still may think I am "hanging it way out there." That is fine, but when you see me vary from my norm, and wonder why, use your logic and wonder what I see that is making me seeing a No vote as a choice based on decent logic and sound judgement. I do not post everything I know here contrary to popular belief. I just telling you what I see as issues with the TA, and the fact that this is the first step in many. That equates to leverage.
We can chose to use any leverage we have or we can vote yes, and take what is presented. I have one vote, but am explaining what I see much like you. I will move beyond this TA no matter what the decision is. Its one time that a trade unionist is allowed to think and speak freely.
I fully admit that my projections down the road are 100% pure speculation. They have not happened, and may not happen. I am stating what would be contractually allowed given the language.
You should ask yourself why I of all people am willing to send this back? Doesn't makes sense eh? You always think I have more info than I am sharing. I can tell you that even if you want to call it all speculation, its based on some good logic.
All I am really willing to put out there is that this TA is the hurdle that the company needs to go over to start a series of events that will be really good for them, and possibly for us. It will make DAL the logical leader for a decade or more. This deal needs to be done first. Plan B that everyone states is without us, is not really without us. There are many parts of it that the company will look to us and ALPA for help with. They will need our help because the number of players is getting smaller. Our support is paramount. Plan be costs a lot more money and us much less preferred. Will they do that out of spite? Ask yourself a rhetorical question; Is this an emotional decision or a business decision based on number for them? I can tell ya that Plan A is a lot cheaper, and preferred by a long shot. At this point we have leverage. Going forward though two to four events and maybe one JPWA we end up at a point where the mergers are done and leverage without a lengthy time frame is gone.
The time to do this stuff is now. This TA basically will allow many things in a merger that we will not need to negotiate. In other words leverage will be lower than it is today.
If this is voted down, no one can promise with 100% certainty what path the company will take. I will not, but I will tell you that it will be a business decision, and a exercise on math. Given what I see a must fix; as well as others, it still going to be cheaper dealing with us that going with plan B. The scenario based posts I have made are merely a way to illustrate where the language could fail or where we set ourselves up to need to use future leverage that will effect the outcome in other areas.
The work rule changes are the most confusing if there is going to be a merger or acquisition where we take pilots. They will cost positions on the list because it will take less pilots for the same block hr plan. 30-60 minutes a month seems inconsequential, but when you multiply that by 10500 active line pilots, the number of less pilots needed starts to add up.
You do not have to believe me, and still may think I am "hanging it way out there." That is fine, but when you see me vary from my norm, and wonder why, use your logic and wonder what I see that is making me seeing a No vote as a choice based on decent logic and sound judgement. I do not post everything I know here contrary to popular belief. I just telling you what I see as issues with the TA, and the fact that this is the first step in many. That equates to leverage.
We can chose to use any leverage we have or we can vote yes, and take what is presented. I have one vote, but am explaining what I see much like you. I will move beyond this TA no matter what the decision is. Its one time that a trade unionist is allowed to think and speak freely.
It was the same argument I used with T, ask yourself why ACL is voting no. I'm glad you put your thoughts in writing.
06-12-2012, 02:55 PM
#135
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
ACL, so it boils down to "something could happen, I can't articulate it, but it's got to be out there, because it's so complicated and there could be loopholes, and scheduling could take advantage of things."
Is that it?
You are making an illogical connection between the change to ALV and the early retirement.
Early retirement is something we want because we are currently overstaffed. It is an option that avoids a displacement bid, followed shortly by an AE returning pilots to the same category. And if a few hundred go, it could possibly move us all up one stove pipe position in the event of a merger, if anyone believes that might happen.
The increase in ALV was done so an ALV range of 72-84 approximately equalled the annual Block Hour monthly range. The number of pilots flying a January ALV 72 hours equals the number of pilots flying a July ALV 84 hours. There is a more consistent line between regular and reserve, which is something many former NWA found desirable with their Block Holder system.
Suggesting we need to tie the number of early retirements to implementation of ALV is an argument that I fail to see the connection. I also see only one precedent in any of our past contracts for something like that. In fact, both ALPA and the company have resisted punitive language for PWA non-compliance. Imagine the call from the CPO... your failure to make it to work in time caused a GS to be awarded. We'll have to take that $3,000 out of your next paycheck. Your propsition of linking these items, or including punitive language is poorly thought out. In the real world, the consequences of non-compliance are best handled individually versus placing a precedent setting noose around all of our necks.
I'd go back and rethink those things. Lay that logic on top of:
Industry leading rates.
Industry leading scope.
Less DCI:
Jets.
ASMs and BHs.
Pilots.
Seats.
Logic, facts and reason ought to guide you. Not, "my standards are so high I just can't lower myself to normal Delta pilot standards!"
Is that it?
You are making an illogical connection between the change to ALV and the early retirement.
Early retirement is something we want because we are currently overstaffed. It is an option that avoids a displacement bid, followed shortly by an AE returning pilots to the same category. And if a few hundred go, it could possibly move us all up one stove pipe position in the event of a merger, if anyone believes that might happen.
The increase in ALV was done so an ALV range of 72-84 approximately equalled the annual Block Hour monthly range. The number of pilots flying a January ALV 72 hours equals the number of pilots flying a July ALV 84 hours. There is a more consistent line between regular and reserve, which is something many former NWA found desirable with their Block Holder system.
Suggesting we need to tie the number of early retirements to implementation of ALV is an argument that I fail to see the connection. I also see only one precedent in any of our past contracts for something like that. In fact, both ALPA and the company have resisted punitive language for PWA non-compliance. Imagine the call from the CPO... your failure to make it to work in time caused a GS to be awarded. We'll have to take that $3,000 out of your next paycheck. Your propsition of linking these items, or including punitive language is poorly thought out. In the real world, the consequences of non-compliance are best handled individually versus placing a precedent setting noose around all of our necks.
I'd go back and rethink those things. Lay that logic on top of:
Industry leading rates.
Industry leading scope.
Less DCI:
Jets.
ASMs and BHs.
Pilots.
Seats.
Logic, facts and reason ought to guide you. Not, "my standards are so high I just can't lower myself to normal Delta pilot standards!"
Last edited by padre2992; 06-12-2012 at 02:56 PM. Reason: punctuation
06-12-2012, 02:58 PM
#136
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
acl, so it boils down to "something could happen, i can't articulate it, but it's got to be out there, because it's so complicated and there could be loopholes, and scheduling could take advantage of things."
is that it?
You are making an illogical connection between the change to alv and the early retirement.
Early retirement is something we want because we are currently overstaffed. It is an option that avoids a displacement bid, followed shortly by an ae returning pilots to the same category. And if a few hundred go, it could possibly move us all up one stove pipe position in the event of a merger, if anyone believes that might happen.
The increase in alv was done so an alv range of 72-84 approximately equalled the annual block hour monthly range. The number of pilots flying a january alv 72 hours equals the number of pilots flying a july alv 84 hours. There is a more consistent line between regular and reserve, which is something many former nwa found desirable with their block holder system.
Suggesting we need to tie the number of early retirements to implementation of alv is an argument that i fail to see the connection. I also see only one precedent in any of our past contracts for something like that. In fact, both alpa and the company have resisted punitive language for pwa non-compliance. Imagine the call from the cpo... Your failure to make it to work in time caused a gs to be awarded. We'll have to take that $3,000 out of your next paycheck. Your propsition of linking these items, or including punitive language is poorly thought out. In the real world, the consequences of non-compliance are best handled individually versus placing a precedent setting noose around all of our necks.
I'd go back and rethink those things. Lay that logic on top of:
Industry leading rates.
Industry leading scope.
Less dci:
Jets.
Asms and bhs.
Pilots.
Seats.
Logic, facts and reason ought to guide you. Not, "my standards are so high i just can't lower myself to normal delta pilot standards!"
is that it?
You are making an illogical connection between the change to alv and the early retirement.
Early retirement is something we want because we are currently overstaffed. It is an option that avoids a displacement bid, followed shortly by an ae returning pilots to the same category. And if a few hundred go, it could possibly move us all up one stove pipe position in the event of a merger, if anyone believes that might happen.
The increase in alv was done so an alv range of 72-84 approximately equalled the annual block hour monthly range. The number of pilots flying a january alv 72 hours equals the number of pilots flying a july alv 84 hours. There is a more consistent line between regular and reserve, which is something many former nwa found desirable with their block holder system.
Suggesting we need to tie the number of early retirements to implementation of alv is an argument that i fail to see the connection. I also see only one precedent in any of our past contracts for something like that. In fact, both alpa and the company have resisted punitive language for pwa non-compliance. Imagine the call from the cpo... Your failure to make it to work in time caused a gs to be awarded. We'll have to take that $3,000 out of your next paycheck. Your propsition of linking these items, or including punitive language is poorly thought out. In the real world, the consequences of non-compliance are best handled individually versus placing a precedent setting noose around all of our necks.
I'd go back and rethink those things. Lay that logic on top of:
Industry leading rates.
Industry leading scope.
Less dci:
Jets.
Asms and bhs.
Pilots.
Seats.
Logic, facts and reason ought to guide you. Not, "my standards are so high i just can't lower myself to normal delta pilot standards!"
+++++++++++++717
06-12-2012, 03:00 PM
#137
Senior by choice
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 427
Your condescension toward anyone who doesn't agree with you is astounding. It truly confirms all the accusations against this administration that those who don't agree with the MEC's ideas are cast out and denigrated...I think you have convinced me....that this MEC's priorities are not those of the line pilots, that you know what's best for all of us. Congrats! I was never interested in the alter ego donuts until now!!
06-12-2012, 03:03 PM
#138
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
T,
I fully admit that my projections down the road are 100% pure speculation. They have not happened, and may not happen. I am stating what would be contractually allowed given the language.
You should ask yourself why I of all people am willing to send this back? Doesn't makes sense eh? You always think I have more info than I am sharing. I can tell you that even if you want to call it all speculation, its based on some good logic.
All I am really willing to put out there is that this TA is the hurdle that the company needs to go over to start a series of events that will be really good for them, and possibly for us. It will make DAL the logical leader for a decade or more. This deal needs to be done first. Plan B that everyone states is without us, is not really without us. There are many parts of it that the company will look to us and ALPA for help with. They will need our help because the number of players is getting smaller. Our support is paramount. Plan be costs a lot more money and us much less preferred. Will they do that out of spite? Ask yourself a rhetorical question; Is this an emotional decision or a business decision based on number for them? I can tell ya that Plan A is a lot cheaper, and preferred by a long shot. At this point we have leverage. Going forward though two to four events and maybe one JPWA we end up at a point where the mergers are done and leverage without a lengthy time frame is gone.
The time to do this stuff is now. This TA basically will allow many things in a merger that we will not need to negotiate. In other words leverage will be lower than it is today.
If this is voted down, no one can promise with 100% certainty what path the company will take. I will not, but I will tell you that it will be a business decision, and a exercise on math. Given what I see a must fix; as well as others, it still going to be cheaper dealing with us that going with plan B. The scenario based posts I have made are merely a way to illustrate where the language could fail or where we set ourselves up to need to use future leverage that will effect the outcome in other areas.
The work rule changes are the most confusing if there is going to be a merger or acquisition where we take pilots. They will cost positions on the list because it will take less pilots for the same block hr plan. 30-60 minutes a month seems inconsequential, but when you multiply that by 10500 active line pilots, the number of less pilots needed starts to add up.
You do not have to believe me, and still may think I am "hanging it way out there." That is fine, but when you see me vary from my norm, and wonder why, use your logic and wonder what I see that is making me seeing a No vote as a choice based on decent logic and sound judgement. I do not post everything I know here contrary to popular belief. I just telling you what I see as issues with the TA, and the fact that this is the first step in many. That equates to leverage.
We can chose to use any leverage we have or we can vote yes, and take what is presented. I have one vote, but am explaining what I see much like you. I will move beyond this TA no matter what the decision is. Its one time that a trade unionist is allowed to think and speak freely.
I fully admit that my projections down the road are 100% pure speculation. They have not happened, and may not happen. I am stating what would be contractually allowed given the language.
You should ask yourself why I of all people am willing to send this back? Doesn't makes sense eh? You always think I have more info than I am sharing. I can tell you that even if you want to call it all speculation, its based on some good logic.
All I am really willing to put out there is that this TA is the hurdle that the company needs to go over to start a series of events that will be really good for them, and possibly for us. It will make DAL the logical leader for a decade or more. This deal needs to be done first. Plan B that everyone states is without us, is not really without us. There are many parts of it that the company will look to us and ALPA for help with. They will need our help because the number of players is getting smaller. Our support is paramount. Plan be costs a lot more money and us much less preferred. Will they do that out of spite? Ask yourself a rhetorical question; Is this an emotional decision or a business decision based on number for them? I can tell ya that Plan A is a lot cheaper, and preferred by a long shot. At this point we have leverage. Going forward though two to four events and maybe one JPWA we end up at a point where the mergers are done and leverage without a lengthy time frame is gone.
The time to do this stuff is now. This TA basically will allow many things in a merger that we will not need to negotiate. In other words leverage will be lower than it is today.
If this is voted down, no one can promise with 100% certainty what path the company will take. I will not, but I will tell you that it will be a business decision, and a exercise on math. Given what I see a must fix; as well as others, it still going to be cheaper dealing with us that going with plan B. The scenario based posts I have made are merely a way to illustrate where the language could fail or where we set ourselves up to need to use future leverage that will effect the outcome in other areas.
The work rule changes are the most confusing if there is going to be a merger or acquisition where we take pilots. They will cost positions on the list because it will take less pilots for the same block hr plan. 30-60 minutes a month seems inconsequential, but when you multiply that by 10500 active line pilots, the number of less pilots needed starts to add up.
You do not have to believe me, and still may think I am "hanging it way out there." That is fine, but when you see me vary from my norm, and wonder why, use your logic and wonder what I see that is making me seeing a No vote as a choice based on decent logic and sound judgement. I do not post everything I know here contrary to popular belief. I just telling you what I see as issues with the TA, and the fact that this is the first step in many. That equates to leverage.
We can chose to use any leverage we have or we can vote yes, and take what is presented. I have one vote, but am explaining what I see much like you. I will move beyond this TA no matter what the decision is. Its one time that a trade unionist is allowed to think and speak freely.
06-12-2012, 03:05 PM
#139
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Your condescension toward anyone who doesn't agree with you is astounding. It truly confirms all the accusations against this administration that those who don't agree with the MEC's ideas are cast out and denigrated...I think you have convinced me....that this MEC's priorities are not those of the line pilots, that you know what's best for all of us. Congrats! I was never interested in the alter ego donuts until now!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
