What if a no vote means less?
06-16-2012, 04:32 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
so if I get this right,
If the TA is rejected, we should worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities an consider that fear when casting our vote
But
Shouldn't worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities should the TA pass and reject that fear when casting our vote.
I think I got it.
Cheers
George
If the TA is rejected, we should worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities an consider that fear when casting our vote
But
Shouldn't worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities should the TA pass and reject that fear when casting our vote.
I think I got it.
Cheers
George
06-16-2012, 04:43 AM
#42
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Remember, this deal is the combination of multiple negotiations, with Boeing/Southwest and/or Airbus, all the DCI carriers (except Comair because we own them), regional jet manufacturers, and debt/leaseholders. All of these deals had to come together pretty much all at once because they are all dependent upon each other. If Delta rewards pilots for unraveling this complicated deal, then how would all these other parties respond? It’s good to think of various options and consider all aspects of a deal, but self-delusion is not a basis for strategic planning. There is no bag of money waiting under the CEO’s desk that we simply have to ask for and he will hand it over.
RAH, the Airbus operator and soon to be C-Series customer, who got an exemption to continue operating as DCI and Frontier, and who dropped this out in the public domain right when we announced the TA?:
Republic Airways CEO talks Bombardier jet plans
5-22-2012
MINNEAPOLIS — The CEO of feeder airline operator Republic Airways said on Wednesday that new Bombardier jets could be flown in the U.S. in a partnership with one of the big airline alliances.
Republic ordered 40 of the new C-Series jets being developed by Montreal-based Bombardier, which is aiming to begin delivering them to other customers by the end of next year.
Republic's main business is flying smaller jets for big airlines such as Delta and United. But the new Bombardier plane has 100 to 149 seats, a size typically flown by the major airlines themselves, not by feeder carriers.
Pilot contracts at all the major airlines bar partnerships with feeder carriers flying planes that big. Republic CEO Bryan Bedford was asked at a regional airline convention on Wednesday what his airline plans to do with those jets.
One possibility is that "it could fit into a global alliance as (a low-cost carrier) component to a broader North American strategy for a SkyTeam or Star or oneworld," Bedford said in an interview.
He declined to talk in detail about Republic's plans for the jet, which is supposed to begin arriving in late 2015. His comments appeared to suggest that Republic might operate those planes in partnership with one of the big three airline alliances. SkyTeam is anchored in the U.S. by Delta, the Star Alliance has United Airlines and US Airways, and oneworld has American.
"I still think that what we're going to see is a worldview where a low-cost carrier can participate in domestic alliances in 2015, and that there'll be a need for that product here," he said.
Republic also owns Denver-based Frontier Airlines, which is it trying to sell or spin off. Bedford said the C-Series order will stay with Republic, though, and not go with Frontier. Barclays will begin marketing Frontier to potential investors around mid-July, Bedford said.
Shares of Indianapolis-based Republic Airways Holdings Inc. rose 24 cents, or 5 percent, to close at $5.08.
5-22-2012
MINNEAPOLIS — The CEO of feeder airline operator Republic Airways said on Wednesday that new Bombardier jets could be flown in the U.S. in a partnership with one of the big airline alliances.
Republic ordered 40 of the new C-Series jets being developed by Montreal-based Bombardier, which is aiming to begin delivering them to other customers by the end of next year.
Republic's main business is flying smaller jets for big airlines such as Delta and United. But the new Bombardier plane has 100 to 149 seats, a size typically flown by the major airlines themselves, not by feeder carriers.
Pilot contracts at all the major airlines bar partnerships with feeder carriers flying planes that big. Republic CEO Bryan Bedford was asked at a regional airline convention on Wednesday what his airline plans to do with those jets.
One possibility is that "it could fit into a global alliance as (a low-cost carrier) component to a broader North American strategy for a SkyTeam or Star or oneworld," Bedford said in an interview.
He declined to talk in detail about Republic's plans for the jet, which is supposed to begin arriving in late 2015. His comments appeared to suggest that Republic might operate those planes in partnership with one of the big three airline alliances. SkyTeam is anchored in the U.S. by Delta, the Star Alliance has United Airlines and US Airways, and oneworld has American.
"I still think that what we're going to see is a worldview where a low-cost carrier can participate in domestic alliances in 2015, and that there'll be a need for that product here," he said.
Republic also owns Denver-based Frontier Airlines, which is it trying to sell or spin off. Bedford said the C-Series order will stay with Republic, though, and not go with Frontier. Barclays will begin marketing Frontier to potential investors around mid-July, Bedford said.
Shares of Indianapolis-based Republic Airways Holdings Inc. rose 24 cents, or 5 percent, to close at $5.08.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 06-16-2012 at 04:54 AM.
06-16-2012, 04:49 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Bah,
It was such a nice break being away from here, but the road shows weren't compatible iwth my schedule so ...
I have some questions and some comments and this thread looks relatives recent so ...
1. Open grievances - usually settled/withdrawn/go away with the signing of a new CBA. Is this going to happen if TA2012 is ratified by the pilots? Just wondering if I'm going to be the Wizard of Oz on my rest break on the A330-300 (man behind the curtain for those that didn't get it)
All grievances stay on sched afaik. Some improvement in grievance Lang in TA.
2. Delta Private Jets - Any reason we can't toss em in the same bucket as DCI for purposes of scope protection? Add the hulls and the block hours to the DCI side of the equations, count as 70/76 seat jets even though they are much smaller and keep the cap on their physical airframe size. Side note: I too think international block hours should be included in the "DCI ratio" formula but adjust the ratio numbers accordingly to keep the DCI flying level/hull count the same.
DPJ is its own category now. It is what it is.
3. The "Refinery" - is under Delta's corporate umbrella as an LLC. Will its profits(if any) be included in PTIX and therefore profit sharing?
Either way it would still help profit sharing because it would mean that Delta is buying fuel at below market rates which translates into profits on the operational side.
4. Scope - Scope has become the most complex part of a CBA. It takes a looong time to crunch the numbers, play mental chess and see what you THINK the effect will be on jobs. I don't think there is enough time for line pilots (the ones that are interested and can understand it) to evaluate Section 1 prior to the voting deadline. My gut feeling is I don't like the language after a time-constrained perusal, which means I am probably not seeing all of the smaller loopholes that will bite us in the a$$ later.
The time change was for 60 days down to 45 days and every dues paying Delta pilot has been given multiple resources to able to have their questions answered by the professionals(the guys that designed and negotiated it at DALPA), call the DPN, call a P2P vol., stop by a crew room in almost any base, call or email your rep, read the notepads, etc.
Which brings me to number 5.
5. Negotiating strategies - I don't know how far back things are saved on APC, but I remember a couple of things posted about negotiations a few years ago.
Management uses outside firms to advise them on many things during negotiations, one of these things being the pace of negotiations. There has been much speculation here about the reason for the early negotiations. I call it speculation because unless you signed a confidentiality agreement and are involved in negotiations in some official capacity, you did not get first hand knowledge. Why does there have to be only one reason for early negotiations?
I can see it being a good tactic to rush the pilots into a vote on a TA so they don't really get the quality time to analyze and digest content like Scope language It reminds me of a car salesman saying "Well this HUGE rebate ends on the last day of the month and corporate hasn't told us whether it will be available for buyers next month. You better buy now while the rebate is still being offered." I would rather have more time to think about the deal even if it costs me a little money, but that's just me...
DALPA had been prepping for 18 months prior, they were ready...
Lastly, an observation - I can remember during many of the NWA MEC meetings, one of the most common arguments AGAINST allowing Membership Ratification. I believe it failed at least three times until it finally got approved. The con argument was... Management will always hold something back in case the pilots vote NO, so MemRat will not give you their best offer. I haven't seen those people (a few of which worked for ALPA National) use that argument since MemRat was finally approved. It appears to me that some of the pro and con players of that debate have swapped positions with the some anti-memrat side now saying there are no additional goodies if we vote NO, and some on the pro-memrat side saying "We think you were right and management is holding something back in case we vote NO."
Without MEMRAT, we would have already accepted this TA! If your theory has merit...
And I think it might, non-memrat deals are better than MEMRAT deals? I'd sponsor a joint resolution to stop memrat if it means our negotiating strength is increased.
FLY THE AIRPLANE, DO NOT HURRY.
It was such a nice break being away from here, but the road shows weren't compatible iwth my schedule so ...
I have some questions and some comments and this thread looks relatives recent so ...
1. Open grievances - usually settled/withdrawn/go away with the signing of a new CBA. Is this going to happen if TA2012 is ratified by the pilots? Just wondering if I'm going to be the Wizard of Oz on my rest break on the A330-300 (man behind the curtain for those that didn't get it)
All grievances stay on sched afaik. Some improvement in grievance Lang in TA.
2. Delta Private Jets - Any reason we can't toss em in the same bucket as DCI for purposes of scope protection? Add the hulls and the block hours to the DCI side of the equations, count as 70/76 seat jets even though they are much smaller and keep the cap on their physical airframe size. Side note: I too think international block hours should be included in the "DCI ratio" formula but adjust the ratio numbers accordingly to keep the DCI flying level/hull count the same.
DPJ is its own category now. It is what it is.
3. The "Refinery" - is under Delta's corporate umbrella as an LLC. Will its profits(if any) be included in PTIX and therefore profit sharing?
Either way it would still help profit sharing because it would mean that Delta is buying fuel at below market rates which translates into profits on the operational side.
4. Scope - Scope has become the most complex part of a CBA. It takes a looong time to crunch the numbers, play mental chess and see what you THINK the effect will be on jobs. I don't think there is enough time for line pilots (the ones that are interested and can understand it) to evaluate Section 1 prior to the voting deadline. My gut feeling is I don't like the language after a time-constrained perusal, which means I am probably not seeing all of the smaller loopholes that will bite us in the a$$ later.
The time change was for 60 days down to 45 days and every dues paying Delta pilot has been given multiple resources to able to have their questions answered by the professionals(the guys that designed and negotiated it at DALPA), call the DPN, call a P2P vol., stop by a crew room in almost any base, call or email your rep, read the notepads, etc.
Which brings me to number 5.
5. Negotiating strategies - I don't know how far back things are saved on APC, but I remember a couple of things posted about negotiations a few years ago.
Management uses outside firms to advise them on many things during negotiations, one of these things being the pace of negotiations. There has been much speculation here about the reason for the early negotiations. I call it speculation because unless you signed a confidentiality agreement and are involved in negotiations in some official capacity, you did not get first hand knowledge. Why does there have to be only one reason for early negotiations?
I can see it being a good tactic to rush the pilots into a vote on a TA so they don't really get the quality time to analyze and digest content like Scope language It reminds me of a car salesman saying "Well this HUGE rebate ends on the last day of the month and corporate hasn't told us whether it will be available for buyers next month. You better buy now while the rebate is still being offered." I would rather have more time to think about the deal even if it costs me a little money, but that's just me...
DALPA had been prepping for 18 months prior, they were ready...
Lastly, an observation - I can remember during many of the NWA MEC meetings, one of the most common arguments AGAINST allowing Membership Ratification. I believe it failed at least three times until it finally got approved. The con argument was... Management will always hold something back in case the pilots vote NO, so MemRat will not give you their best offer. I haven't seen those people (a few of which worked for ALPA National) use that argument since MemRat was finally approved. It appears to me that some of the pro and con players of that debate have swapped positions with the some anti-memrat side now saying there are no additional goodies if we vote NO, and some on the pro-memrat side saying "We think you were right and management is holding something back in case we vote NO."
Without MEMRAT, we would have already accepted this TA! If your theory has merit...
And I think it might, non-memrat deals are better than MEMRAT deals? I'd sponsor a joint resolution to stop memrat if it means our negotiating strength is increased.
FLY THE AIRPLANE, DO NOT HURRY.
Where is our leverage to extract more? We didn't meet the companies' timeline during the merger and as a result we all lost 2% of the initial JPWA bump and some of the rule enhancements... I think we can infer how this management team responds to entities that will not move quickly enough in their business plan.
Saying "No!" to his TA:
will cost Delta Pilots over $11 million per month for the remainder of 2012.
2013 will cost Delta pilots around $25 million per month
2014 will cost Delta Pilots around $32 Million per month.
1015 will cost Delta Pilot roughly $35 million per month.
Leave us without some significant international and domestic scope protections that we currently lack.
I'd like to be back at the table 20% higher with "full retro", better scope and an improved PWA when the next event happens, it will allow is to put more focus on the areas that came up a little short.
We can have it all, we just can't have it all right now.
06-16-2012, 06:27 AM
#45
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
so if I get this right,
If the TA is rejected, we should worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities an consider that fear when casting our vote
But
Shouldn't worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities should the TA pass and reject that fear when casting our vote.
I think I got it.
Cheers
George
If the TA is rejected, we should worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities an consider that fear when casting our vote
But
Shouldn't worry about all and any possible contingencies, even the most remote bad possibilities should the TA pass and reject that fear when casting our vote.
I think I got it.
Cheers
George
The only addition is that this selective worry about possibilities is NOT being perpetuated by management as you would expect in a contract negotiations, it is being perpetuated by our "union".
Paying union dues to a communications arm of management is a very irritating thing.
Carl
06-16-2012, 06:46 AM
#46
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
The pilots being used as a communication/lobbying arm of management as often as they come wanting us to contact our Senators and Representative on their behalf is very irritating as well; especially since afterwards they seem to always forget about it until the next time they want some help in D.C.
Last edited by texavia; 06-16-2012 at 07:05 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
