The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-12-2012, 04:43 PM
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Who had any idea about a potential early deal when we filled out the original survey? My expectation was for a lot of workrule improvements, scope improvements, benefit improvements, DC funding increases, then 18/5/5, in that order.
I didn't expect it without at least a strike vote. I was hoping for a quick contract, maybe early 2014. 13 months after the amendable date is pretty outrageous, but I felt optimistic enough based on economic trends last year.
Only when Wilson Polling called (much later) did I get asked if I would take less for an earlier deal. The reps say the vast majority of us answered they would have lower expectations of an early contract.
It's here. It's now up to us to see if early/less is better than later/hopefully more.
I didn't expect it without at least a strike vote. I was hoping for a quick contract, maybe early 2014. 13 months after the amendable date is pretty outrageous, but I felt optimistic enough based on economic trends last year.
Only when Wilson Polling called (much later) did I get asked if I would take less for an earlier deal. The reps say the vast majority of us answered they would have lower expectations of an early contract.
It's here. It's now up to us to see if early/less is better than later/hopefully more.
06-12-2012, 04:48 PM
#152
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
This has nothing to do with being pro-alpa. I do not want everyone
just to fall in line just because the MEC says it is good. From what I read, he was undecided until he really studied all the ramifications and came to a decision. The 5 reps that voted no are not anti-alpa either.
just to fall in line just because the MEC says it is good. From what I read, he was undecided until he really studied all the ramifications and came to a decision. The 5 reps that voted no are not anti-alpa either.
06-12-2012, 04:52 PM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
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!!
It is unfortunate that you believe that my question was "astounding condescension." Is it unfair to ask a question that has relevance to our current circumstance regarding a statement made by ACL (indeed I didn't ask the original question)?
06-12-2012, 04:56 PM
#154
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I will boil section one to three items
SJS. Check valve on the top end ratio to give Dal a .04 variance Sunset provision of DCI on a ratioed basis out to 15 years.
Holding company. Dal is the united states alliance partner period. Works for many thing
JV. All require a production balance.
I leave dpi out of it.
Rest of the deal
Alv+15 goes to alv +7.5 For reserves if you must for international make it separate.
DPA goes to six for international and domestic 5
Work rules phased in as number of retirements taken goes though gates.
Pay patterns day one (jan 1 2013)
06-12-2012, 05:00 PM
#155
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
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!"
Thats your opinion. The quids are not worth the pro quo. The concepts are industy leading. The scenarios are to show holes. Lalala nothing to see here. ,
06-12-2012, 05:04 PM
#156
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I admit I'm looking at this for worst case. It's better to see an issue now and not when we are presented with it.
I will boil section one to three items
SJS. Check valve on the top end ratio to give Dal a .04 variance Sunset provision of DCI on a ratioed basis out to 15 years.
Holding company. Dal is the united states alliance partner period. Works for many thing
JV. All require a production balance.
I leave dpi out of it.
Rest of the deal
Alv+15 goes to alv +7.5 For reserves if you must for international make it separate.
DPA goes to six for international and domestic 5
Work rules phased in as number of retirements taken goes though gates.
Pay patterns day one (jan 1 2013)
I will boil section one to three items
SJS. Check valve on the top end ratio to give Dal a .04 variance Sunset provision of DCI on a ratioed basis out to 15 years.
Holding company. Dal is the united states alliance partner period. Works for many thing
JV. All require a production balance.
I leave dpi out of it.
Rest of the deal
Alv+15 goes to alv +7.5 For reserves if you must for international make it separate.
DPA goes to six for international and domestic 5
Work rules phased in as number of retirements taken goes though gates.
Pay patterns day one (jan 1 2013)
Frikkin Beautiful...did you come up with this on your own?
06-12-2012, 05:21 PM
#157
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
What do ya think? Of course. 
The scenarios I use are to draw a picture. What I posted above is a quick fix and the cost is about 130-145million more day 1.
I can be brief but what's the point
. Pilots want to see your thinking so I give it. Good or bad.
You want solutions and a road map after a failure, these are must haves and it allows Dal to get large rj's but the quid puts them to rest in 15 years. It's a pragmatic approach and one I suggested over two years ago without the need for redoing the leases. This is a lot cheaper than any of the alternatives the company has available to them.
The scenarios I use are to draw a picture. What I posted above is a quick fix and the cost is about 130-145million more day 1.
I can be brief but what's the point
. Pilots want to see your thinking so I give it. Good or bad. You want solutions and a road map after a failure, these are must haves and it allows Dal to get large rj's but the quid puts them to rest in 15 years. It's a pragmatic approach and one I suggested over two years ago without the need for redoing the leases. This is a lot cheaper than any of the alternatives the company has available to them.
06-12-2012, 05:58 PM
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I spoke to three of your reps (assuming you're ATL-based) while going through the ATL lounge discussions, and two of mine in New York. I spoke to another that was manning the phone. I got the explanation on the non-prejudicial language from all of them. They clearly pointed out that going back re-opens everything. They weren't scared of it, but they were explicit: there is language that ensures this TA cannot be used as the basis for new negotiations. It's not a starting point for another short agreement.
In practical terms, you can always, by mutual agreement, tweak the existing language. Problem is, outside of a strike situation, the precedent invariably favors the company. Without a strike looming, the pilots get no additional leverage. The NC usually has to resign, the membership polled to determine exactly what needs to be changed (an important issue, if the TA suggests the MEC went off the reservation), and the time elapsed ensures whatvere opportunity this is based on, has moved on.
Ergo, the choice is between this TA, or the normal route. Which is fine.
I'm basing much of my reasoning on this TA on their explanation about our options. It seems logical, and it matches what I've seen happen at other airlines. So I don't believe there is a third option, at least not one where we don't go all "AirTran" and bastardize this agreement even more, for example by switching more from Section 1 into Section 3.
But maybe you're right. You're saying "many reps" said we simply go back. Which reps?
In practical terms, you can always, by mutual agreement, tweak the existing language. Problem is, outside of a strike situation, the precedent invariably favors the company. Without a strike looming, the pilots get no additional leverage. The NC usually has to resign, the membership polled to determine exactly what needs to be changed (an important issue, if the TA suggests the MEC went off the reservation), and the time elapsed ensures whatvere opportunity this is based on, has moved on.
Ergo, the choice is between this TA, or the normal route. Which is fine.
I'm basing much of my reasoning on this TA on their explanation about our options. It seems logical, and it matches what I've seen happen at other airlines. So I don't believe there is a third option, at least not one where we don't go all "AirTran" and bastardize this agreement even more, for example by switching more from Section 1 into Section 3.
But maybe you're right. You're saying "many reps" said we simply go back. Which reps?
06-12-2012, 06:14 PM
#159
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I think people are just stunned at the transformation. He was 110% pro-ALPA, and now he has done a 180. I admit I was the same the other way, but not as pronounced as ACL was. He was the guy saying "stay calm everyone, let the process work." Then, he turned a 180. And, he is the self pronounced "El Jefe." We all look up to him.
This has nothing to do with being pro-alpa. I do not want everyone
just to fall in line just because the MEC says it is good. From what I read, he was undecided until he really studied all the ramifications and came to a decision. The 5 reps that voted no are not anti-alpa either.
just to fall in line just because the MEC says it is good. From what I read, he was undecided until he really studied all the ramifications and came to a decision. The 5 reps that voted no are not anti-alpa either.
acl65pilot has NEVER promoted anything but ALPA. He does not believe in anything else. IMO, acl65pilot is looking forward. He's being PRO-active, while DALPA is being RE-active. We need to stop reacting, and start preventing.
06-12-2012, 06:24 PM
#160
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Bingo Sink,
This company has spent too much time and resources keeping other unions off the property to just let us tweak this "extension" (let's call it what it is). The company won't let other groups see that kind of flexibility. Section 6 it will be.
If Section 6 ok, say it. Quit this throw it back on the burner "stuff". Ain't gonna happen.
Ferd
This company has spent too much time and resources keeping other unions off the property to just let us tweak this "extension" (let's call it what it is). The company won't let other groups see that kind of flexibility. Section 6 it will be.
If Section 6 ok, say it. Quit this throw it back on the burner "stuff". Ain't gonna happen.
Ferd
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
