Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 49): They would have received far less if they let it go down the path. It's a good deal for the pilots and while its not Pre-BK for the pilots, its still one heck of a deal and both sides win.

how do you know this? Typical fear pushing. you must work for management or ALPA.
Delta got 500M of cost savings in this contract. Aka the pilots gave up 500M more vs the JCBA. yeah giving money away is always a great thing. #fail.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 28):

Hope your not talking about me.
I did say DALPA would send a s**ty contract out for MEMRAT (and they did) and hopefully said contract would bring an end to DALPA.....which it didn't.

Quoting mayor (Reply 16): Maybe the "majority" (and the MEC) thought this what was best for them AND the company,

Which would be missing the point.
ALPA's job is to get the best possible contract for the Delta pilots. Not for Delta Air Lines. Not for Comair. Not for Delta's rampers. Not for Delta TechOps. No. DALPA's purpose in life is to do the best for the Delta pilots.
If Delta gives DALPA a TA with 100000% pay raise and it kills the company then it's Delta Air Lines fault. not the pilots. On the flip side, if DALPA votes in a crappy TA then its the fault of the pilots. Not Delta Air Lines. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing one party b**ch about the other fallowing the contract.
anyways. Its a general rule the company isn't going to give a really negative contract on the company side unless forced (ie pilots walk).


to many people are looking at this as great because of the 717. This contract has nothing, not a thing, to do with the 717 or any other aircraft.

Quoting nwaesc (Reply 46): What I am saying is that they likely think of their career expectations first.

Why shouldn't they? Too many people have gotten burned by thinking they can make sacrifices for the company and they'll get paid back later somehow. The airline isn't going to give them anything above what they have to, so why should the pilots lay down for the company? That's not to say that they don't share certain goals, but ultimately the union is there to help the pilots, not the company.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 50): I agree, but good luck reducing the number of 50 seat CRJ200s to 125 system wide, that comes with this contract!

Hopefully the companies that lose the -200s get some new -700s or -900s to compensate. This thing about playing musical chairs with aircraft and which regional is operating them this week isn't good for anyone in the long run.

-Mir

Quoting apodino (Reply 21): Also keep an eye on the MSP hub, which while I don't think it will take a big hit, I think it will be reduced a bit because of this.

Why? If anything it'll hurt DTW more IMO as they have a lot more 50-seat traffic than MSP. MSP actually maintains more mainline traffic (by number of flights) than DTW.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 55): Which would be missing the point. ALPA's job is to get the best possible contract for the Delta pilots. Not for Delta Air Lines. Not for Comair. Not for Delta's rampers. Not for Delta TechOps. No. DALPA's purpose in life is to do the best for the Delta pilots.

And you would be SO wrong, young one. DALPA's DIRECT "purpose in life" may be to what is best for the pilots, but, at some point, they must think about what is best for the company, also. If they don't they'll negotiate themselves out of a job and the company out of business. The rest of the work groups have a direct benefit from this.......they've still got a job.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 55): to many people are looking at this as great because of the 717. This contract has nothing, not a thing, to do with the 717 or any other aircraft.

I seem to remember the company stating that the deal with the 717s was directly tied to the TA, was it not? As for the statement "or any other aircraft" what about the reduction in 50 seat flying and the ability to put more 76 seaters in the system, based on the amount of mainline flying? Surely sounds like "any other aircraft" to me.

Quoting mayor (Reply 58): And you would be SO wrong, young one. DALPA's DIRECT "purpose in life" may be to what is best for the pilots, but, at some point, they must think about what is best for the company, also. If they don't they'll negotiate themselves out of a job and the company out of business. The rest of the work groups have a direct benefit from this.......they've still got a job.

No. I'm not. so me the ALPA bylaw that says any of this. (or DALPA. Hell APA, TWU, IAM, IBT, AFA, AFPA, AMFA, CWA or any other airline union.) It is the COMPANY's job to get a good contract for the company. ALPA's job is to get a good contract for ALPA members. Show may any union rule that says other wise.

This isn't what mayor thinks a union should do. The Unions purpose is to serve its members period. Every unions bylaws will say this.

Oh and if the union "negotiates themselves out of a job" do you not place blame on the management team that gave them said contract? Better question, your pension is costing Delta a ton of money, if its clearly the right thing to do(walk away from money) why haven't you talk them just to keep the check? Oh thats right, you "paid your dues" blah blah. *sigh* such a double standard.   

Quoting mayor (Reply 58): I seem to remember the company stating that the deal with the 717s was directly tied to the TA, was it not? As for the statement "or any other aircraft" what about the reduction in 50 seat flying and the ability to put more 76 seaters in the system, based on the amount of mainline flying? Surely sounds like "any other aircraft" to me.

so your truly believe that Delta couldn't get the 717s without this TA? Come on.   

If Delta wants to pay Boeing to restart the 717 line and order 500,000,000,000 of them they can tomorrow without this TA. All it takes is a quick LOA to add in the aircraft type, if its not in the contract. Had Delta wanted the 717 and the TA was voted down they could have still moved froward with them. They could have even added the 70 76 seats too.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 59): ALPA's job is to get a good contract for ALPA members.

Yes. But a good contract for ALPA members is one that doesn't drive the company into Chapter 11. Poorly thought-through union contracts drove UA, CO, NW, and now AA into Chapter 11. Those pilots (and other work groups) fared FAR worse in Chapter 11 than they would have with differently structured contracts that did not put a defined-benefit albatross around the companies' necks. That's partly management's fault, but it's also partly the union's fault. It was short-term thinking on the part of union leadership that failed to represent the long-term interest of the membership.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 59): Oh and if the union "negotiates themselves out of a job" do you not place blame on the management team that gave them said contract?

I place blame on both the management and the union when that happens.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 55): Delta got 500M of cost savings in this contract. Aka the pilots gave up 500M more vs the JCBA.

This is just wrong, and a good example of the approach that leads to unions bargaining themselves into Chapter 11 and judges rewriting their CBAs. $500 million in cost savings does not necessarily mean the pilots "gave up" $500 million. Win-win restructurings happen every single day in business.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 55): ALPA's job is to get the best possible contract for the Delta pilots. Not for Delta Air Lines. Not for Comair. Not for Delta's rampers. Not for Delta TechOps. No. DALPA's purpose in life is to do the best for the Delta pilots.

Yes, but the best contract for Delta pilots will ultimately be one that helps the company as a whole grow. Is it that hard to understand that if you grow the pie there's more for everyone, while if you shrink it, everyone loses, even if you get a few more % of the shrinking pie?

[quote=DeltaL1011man,reply=50]how do you know this? Typical fear pushing. you must work for management or ALPA.

Seems to me I've seen these comments elsewhere. Are you hanging out at the Angry Pilot Central forums again DeltaL1011man? This contract has no affect on your life whats so ever, yet you have yourself tied up in knots over it. You and some of those guys over at APC have an old school way of thinking when it comes to negotiating contracts between Corporations and Unions . It's not about 'Whats best for my side anymore", It's whats best for both sides now. Didn't the Bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler teach you anything.

[Edited 2012-06-30 04:53:00]

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 47):

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 48):

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 50):

Quoting mayor (Reply 53):

Guys it really does not matter any more what we think and what the union should have and should have not done. The vote is out and the pilots of DL have spoken. I know every one of us is passionate about our own views on how it should be but it does not work like that. What matters here is that DL and the union negotiated a contract, it was presented to the pilots and 62% of the work group thought it was good enough for them to pass it. Every one of DL 10000+ pilots have at least a 4 year degree so we can assume they are smart enough to know what will work and wont work in today's economy. We cannot reminisce on what the pilots compensation was in the past and say it should be back to where it was, clearly those wages were not economical and drove the company into CH11 among other dumb moves implemented by the management in the late 90's and early 2000's. Not sure if its correct or not but the union is saying that the DL pilots have industry leading contract, if that is true what more can you ask for? This is about DL pilots and DL pilots only and they said yes, that is the final word for the next 4 years till next contract negotiation.

I for one am happy the pilots got a deal done as quickly as they did. Is the entire pilot group happy with the deal? Of course not, but a fairly large majority thought it was worth their YES vote so that's what matters in the end.

I will say this, however. It basically blows the whole "Industry Standard" mantra we've heard for the last 9-10 years out of the water. Unless of course, "Industry Standard" still applies to those in ACS.

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 57):

Jesus THANK YOU!!!!!!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55): Yes. But a good contract for ALPA members is one that doesn't drive the company into Chapter 11.

Management signed and agreed to it.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55): Poorly thought-through union contracts drove UA, CO, NW, and now AA into Chapter 11.

Management signed and agreed to it.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55): I place blame on both the management and the union when that happens.

The last quote above seems to be where a lot of folks opinions diverge, based on the first two most persons seems to hold unions and workers more accountable for failures and management more responsible for success, no different than what we just witnessed in the NBA and NFL conflicts. In the NFL case, management locked out the workers for a larger share of a billion dollar PROFIT.
We accept that managements first priority is to the shareholders to make the business successful, most usually do not accept the same for union management, perception in this day and age are that all the laws, rules and protections are now in place to protect workers from abuse.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55): while if you shrink it, everyone loses, even if you get a few more % of the shrinking pie?

This logic is applied based on circumstances, most US legacies that went into Chpt.11 did so to reduce their cost of doing business by taking out the largest section of their cost which at the time was worker compensation. Today fuel is on the way if not already there as the largest single cost factor, so let's see what innovative method they use to manage that expense.

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 57): Guys it really does not matter any more what we think and what the union should have and should have not done. The vote is out and the pilots of DL have spoken.

In my opinion as long as folks are civil it is a good discussion, the one labour group in the airline industry that is overly powerful and has contracts that almost mirror each other in the major areas is the pilots, and if some believe that this agreement has the chance of radically changing the industry it will not end with DL.
AA, US and UA are all in contract negotiations with their pilots, scope clauses is universal across all of them, and if the DL change in scope is viewed as radical enough we will be discussing versions of it a lot longer.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 50): how do you know this? Typical fear pushing. you must work for management or ALPA. Delta got 500M of cost savings in this contract. Aka the pilots gave up 500M more vs the JCBA. yeah giving money away is always a great thing. #fail.

Giving up $500m? So they get a pay raise, more mainline etc. Both sides ended positive, the 500m in savings came from the pilot group being more productive, getting closer to the productivity of PMNW.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 50): Delta got 500M of cost savings in this contract. Aka the pilots gave up 500M more vs the JCBA.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55): $500 million in cost savings does not necessarily mean the pilots "gave up" $500 million.

I would like to point out that Aviation Week had an article a few days ago stating that 75% of GE CF34 engines that power the CRJ200's will need overhauls in the next three years at a total expected cost of more than $1 Billion. The article further gives a figure of $530 million in projected overhaul costs for Skywest, Pinnacle and Comair's current fleet of CRJ200's.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_06_27_2012_p01-02-471422.xml


AFAIK, under the current DCI agreements most if not all of the cost of engine overhauls are passed on Delta. It makes sense to me that a large chunk of the reported $500 million of cost savings will be due not having to perform engine overhauls on the CRJ200's that are leaving the DCI fleet.

Quoting Mir (Reply 51): Why shouldn't they? Too many people have gotten burned by thinking they can make sacrifices for the company and they'll get paid back later somehow. The airline isn't going to give them anything above what they have to, so why should the pilots lay down for the company? That's not to say that they don't share certain goals, but ultimately the union is there to help the pilots, not the company.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. My comments earlier were in reference to idea posted earlier that they entered talks with some sort of altruistic goal in mind.

Quoting dairbus (Reply 62):

you are correct, majority of that 500mil is not having to pay for CRJ200 engine everhauls. Here is the articli:

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/n...ould-save-473m-with.html?ana=yfcpc

Lots of info in this writeup:


Courtesy: Associated Press

Delta Pilots Ratify New Contract

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-...ots-ratify-contract-173730839.html

Two snippets I find interesting:

"The union estimated that the number of seats flown by regional carriers for Delta will drop 15.6 percent. The end result of the changes "will be a massive shift of flying" to Delta itself instead of regional carriers, the union wrote in a June 21 explanation to members. "

I guess based on the fact that management outsourced so much flying to the lowest cost regionals to reduce mainline cost, 15.6 percent may be a big number, however, time will tell on the massive shift of flying. So much depends on what DL decides to do in the next few years in terms of feed into their hubs.

"Delta pilots will get raises of almost 13 percent at the beginning of next year, followed by 3 percent raises at the beginning of 2014 and 2015."

Time will also tell on the financials behind this one, based on current cost and their projections this will be offset by the removal of the 50 seat guzzlers, avoidance of the engine overhauls and a projected cost of fuel.

Let's hope for all involved that the cost of fuel projections over the next few years pans out as it is the primay factor that can upset the balance in this agreement.

Quoting par13del (Reply 66): "Delta pilots will get raises of almost 13 percent at the beginning of next year, followed by 3 percent raises at the beginning of 2014 and 2015."

It is highly unlikely the non-unionized work groups at DL will be getting 13% at the beginning of next year. It obviously pays to have a CBA.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 54): Better question, your pension is costing Delta a ton of money, if its clearly the right thing to do(walk away from money) why haven't you talk them just to keep the check? Oh thats right, you "paid your dues" blah blah. *sigh* such a double standard.

You know, everytime we get in this argument, you imply that I don't deserve my pension. So sad...........anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges, here. As others have said, BOTH sides need to do what is best for the company. Not sure where you were during the BK (I had just retired......guess you were still in grade school   ), but many pilots were ready to throw the other work groups under the bus and were ready to let the company fold, rather than agree to the terms of the BK. NOW, how is THAT good for the employees, customers or the company? That is closer to what I'm talking about than what you're talking about in your personal attacks about me and my pension.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 54): No. I'm not. so me the ALPA bylaw that says any of this. (or DALPA. Hell APA, TWU, IAM, IBT, AFA, AFPA, AMFA, CWA or any other airline union.) It is the COMPANY's job to get a good contract for the company. ALPA's job is to get a good contract for ALPA members. Show may any union rule that says other wise.

I said NOTHING about union rules or bylaws. SHOW me where I did. I said what should be on their minds, rules or not, is the good of the company, as a whole. I'm talking about as human beings, not just as union members or company management.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 54): This isn't what mayor thinks a union should do. The Unions purpose is to serve its members period. Every unions bylaws will say this.

See above

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55): Poorly thought-through union contracts drove UA, CO, NW, and now AA into Chapter 11.

You can add DL into that.......they are at least partially to blame, along with management.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 67): It is highly unlikely the non-unionized work groups at DL will be getting 13% at the beginning of next year. It obviously pays to have a CBA.

No, but they ARE getting a pay raise next January, as well as, probably, profit sharing, again

Quoting mayor (Reply 69): No, but they ARE getting a pay raise next January, as well as, probably, profit sharing, again

I believe we're getting a raise tomorrow as well! Profit sharing on February 14th 2013.

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 61): Giving up $500m? So they get a pay raise, more mainline etc. Both sides ended positive, the 500m in savings came from the pilot group being more productive, getting closer to the productivity of PMNW.

.....So doing more work is winning? Do you understand how the seniority system works? More flying = less people which is bad for pilots.

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): you imply that I don't deserve my pension.

No you do, but if you care so much about the company why do you gather the others with a pension and give it back? you know what the company could do with those savings? you clearly care more about your self and your family than you do about Delta right? (I truly hope the answer is yes to that.)

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): but many pilots were ready to throw the other work groups under the bus and were ready to let the company fold, rather than agree to the terms of the BK.

Again. Give up your pension if its sooooo damn easy dude. Give up pay, work more for less, get outsourced.
Yeah those rotten ass holes. f**k them for thinking about their family and not about "the company". Think about what your saying. Stop being jealous. If you had a chance to save everything you would have done it to. Your just looking at things with the anti-union ideas. Look at the people.

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): NOW, how is THAT good for the employees, customers or the company?

better question, if they walk, and they get a better deal is that better for the pilots? That is DALPA focus. not the other employees, not the customers, and not the company. If they rampers, if TechOps, If the F/As etc want a union to worry about them then they should vote for one. Being jealous at the pilots isn't helping anyone.

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): That is closer to what I'm talking about than what you're talking about in your personal attacks about me and my pension.

I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to give you the point of view. I am more than happy that you have a pension even if i could have more if you didn't, but I'm worried about employees not the company.
So again, If Delta asked you to give up your pension right now......for the good of the company.....would you do it? yes or no.

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): I said what should be on their minds, rules or not, is the good of the company, as a whole.

But that isn't the point of the union. I promise Richard Anderson isn't losing sleep at night because *his* employees have less time off than every airline. He isn't losing sleep because *his* pilots only have two airplane types that make more than a southwest 737. So if he isn't overly worried about the employee why should the employee be worried about him? His job is to run the company right, period. The employee unions job if to make more money and give a safer QOL to the employee and there family period.

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): I'm talking about as human beings, not just as union members or company management.

Oh yes because I should give up food for my kids, as a human being to help the company.   

Quoting mayor (Reply 68): You can add DL into that.......they are at least partially to blame, along with management.

C2K was completely manageable without 9/11. 9/11 is the trigger, not unions or management.

As a business owner that has several unions representing my workers, I nevfer expect the union to be looking out for my interest. Never. I expect the union to negoiate everything they can, plus a dollar. I am trying to negotiate as little as I can minus a dollar. We meet in the middle. I don't resent this approach and if, per chance, I strike a bad deal than shame on me. Not them.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71):

You can't compare what WN pays its 737 pilots and how many DL types get paid more then them. You have to compare legacy to legacy and when you do the answer comes out to about the same, all pay less then WN. And in reality no airline on the planet legacy or LCC compensates their 737/320 pilots like WN does. And if you are following closely WN is saying they will have to address their costs soon otherwise they will end up like the legacies in ch11. Plus WN has newer had to pay out retirement benefits to its employees so it can shell out more on salary. Unlike DL WN does not have a pension that is underfunded by 20B$. And on top of that WN pilots fly more hours per month then their counterparts at DL. Like I said above it does not mater what my and your opinion on the matter is because DL pilots have decided to disagree with both of us and agree to the contract at hand.

[Edited 2012-06-30 10:58:06]

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 67): It is highly unlikely the non-unionized work groups at DL will be getting 13% at the beginning of next year. It obviously pays to have a CBA.

^This^

Ironically, on other sites, many of the most ardent anti-labor people are now the ones wailing the loudest about how small their increase will be compared to the pilots.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 70): I believe we're getting a raise tomorrow as well! Profit sharing on February 14th 2013.

Raise for some... restoration for others...

You also forgot the mystery January 1st increase...

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 23): A competent union can't care about the health of the company when negotiating.

Full pay to the last day, eh?

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 23): The airlines are profitable again.

If that's your basis for your economic analysis, well, frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 23): It's isn't my ideology that says the company got a good deal

Yes, it is. Your ideology specifically requires that employees do all they can to suck every last dime out of a company, even if that means the company is no longer healthy.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 23): They don't know how this works. This isn't their expertise.

Right... so when they vote for an agreement that satisfies them, they're stupid because they could have fought a war that destroyed the airline, all in the name of a few bucks that they probably still wouldn't get?

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 47): Since when is it the worker's job to take care of the company?

The worker is hired to make his company money. It's the very core of the capitalistic economy we live under. If you want to see what happens when a worker cares solely about themselves, and his boss lets him, pick up a history book and read about working conditions in the Soviet Union.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 47): and he must have a say in his contract.

They all had a say, and nearly 2/3rds of them were satisfied with it.


It really bugs me when people simply can't respect the wishes of a workforce, especially when those people seem to be about 20 years younger (on average) than the workforce in question. You look foolish.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to give you the point of view. I am more than happy that you have a pension even if i could have more if you didn't, but I'm worried about employees not the company.

Well, until people like you came along, the employees WERE the company and the company was the employees.....that's the part you don't see.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): Quoting mayor (Reply 68):I'm talking about as human beings, not just as union members or company management. Oh yes because I should give up food for my kids, as a human being to help the company.

Should I type slower so you can understand this..........no company=no work=no employees.......at some point, the employees have to think about the company because it's the company that gives you that paycheck. If they fail, what happens then? Pilots or otherwise, they're standing in the unemployment line, saying "I stood my ground.....my kids are starving, but I stood my ground".........at some point that is just plain stupid.



I wonder where the "spirit" is of the people that were involved in giving the company The Spirit of Delta.......it certainly wouldn't be folks of your ilk, I can tell you that.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): Quoting mayor (Reply 68):you imply that I don't deserve my pension. No you do, but if you care so much about the company why do you gather the others with a pension and give it back? you know what the company could do with those savings? you clearly care more about your self and your family than you do about Delta right? (I truly hope the answer is yes to that.)

I can care about all of them equally........there's such a thing as loyalty.......ever heard of it? Unless the company is screwing me (which they haven't) I'm going to be loyal.......they took care of me for 33+ years and I feel I have to return some of that loyalty.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): So if he isn't overly worried about the employee why should the employee be worried about him? His job is to run the company right, period. The employee unions job if to make more money and give a safer QOL to the employee and there family period.

Well, the fact that you're probably getting pay raises AND profit sharing probably negates that first question..........as for the rest, is it the job of the employees (for which they ARE getting paid) to NOT worry about the company, which is THEM? Who writes those checks that the pilots get, DALPA or the company? Seems to me, that if you don't worry about the company and don't do the best job you can, to keep the company viable, you're just asking for trouble. The better job you do, the better off you'll be.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): C2K was completely manageable without 9/11. 9/11 is the trigger, not unions or management.

DL was already bleeding money, before 9/11...........9/11 just made it worse...............

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): So again, If Delta asked you to give up your pension right now......for the good of the company.....would you do it? yes or no.

I don't know.......I'll probably never get in that position because if they need my $12,000 a year to keep them soluble, they're in big trouble. I've never thought about it because I don't think it will ever happen.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 72): As a business owner that has several unions representing my workers, I nevfer expect the union to be looking out for my interest. Never. I expect the union to negoiate everything they can, plus a dollar. I am trying to negotiate as little as I can minus a dollar. We meet in the middle. I don't resent this approach and if, per chance, I strike a bad deal than shame on me. Not them.

So, do you suppose your unionized workers never think about what would happen if the company folded? Are they not in a position to do the best job they can, to improve the bottom line and, in turn, help them?

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 71): C2K was completely manageable without 9/11. 9/11 is the trigger, not unions or management.

You were, what, 12 when 9/11 happened? Let me give you a history lesson:

Airlines were bleeding money worse in 2000 than they were 3 years ago. If anything, 9/11 helped the industry, because everyone was able to get a government-guaranteed loan to keep running.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 72): As a business owner that has several unions representing my workers, I nevfer expect the union to be looking out for my interest. Never. I expect the union to negoiate everything they can, plus a dollar. I am trying to negotiate as little as I can minus a dollar. We meet in the middle. I don't resent this approach and if, per chance, I strike a bad deal than shame on me. Not them.

Agree totally. That's exactly how both sides should look at negotiations.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): If that's your basis for your economic analysis, well, frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

Here's the deal: under what environment is it advantageous for labor to be due a new contract - profitable times like today or losses like three years ago? Of course the answer is the profitable times. You can demand significant gains and actually receive them. But you have to fight for it. That's all that was saying.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): Yes, it is. Your ideology specifically requires that employees do all they can to suck every last dime out of a company, even if that means the company is no longer healthy.

Fact of life, not an ideology. I'll give a refresher on how this goes. And remember this fact. The company will never agree to a contract that they know will cripple them. Never. They will shut shut it down before that happens. The company alone knows what it can and can't accept on the high end. It's the goal of labor to get that maximum level. Likewise the union alone knows what it can and can't accept. The company's goal is to get that absolute bottom level. Will either side get all they desire? Highly unlikely. Only if they completely dominate negotiations. But that's why you start at the extremes, to get the most you could. The process is just like buying a car. If the union actually was able to get a contract that literally "sucked every last dime" out of the company, that firm is incompetent and will be going under regardless.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): Right... so when they vote for an agreement that satisfies them, they're stupid because they could have fought a war that destroyed the airline, all in the name of a few bucks that they probably still wouldn't get?

Stupid? Not at all. Weak and misinformed? Possibly. You're giving way too much sympathy to the company, which in the end has far more power, information, and control. This isn't a charity here. The workers should work their hardest for the company benefit and ask for as much of the profits as possible. Does the company give out higher wages and work rules just out of the goodness of their heart? Never! They only will do that if they have to--when the market determines a higher wage. So why should labor be concerned about the company's health when the company doesn't look out for them either? They simply can't. Only the company knows what will put them under, and the union can be sure that the company will not agree to a level higher than that. Good companies will have no problem getting a fair deal.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 78): The company will never agree to a contract that they know will cripple them. Never. They will shut shut it down before that happens.

This is amazingly, stupefyingly wrong. Essentially every large U.S. company that used union labor in the '50s and '60s is a counterexample. Just in this industry, UA, AA, CO, and NW were all counterexamples. The history of labor in this country is absolutely littered with contracts that management approved while ignoring the truth, staring them straight in the face, that the contract would be unsustainable for the business when a downturn arrived.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 78): So why should labor be concerned about the company's health when the company doesn't look out for them either? They simply can't.

If labor isn't looking out for the company, it's shortsighted. Likewise, if the company isn't looking out for labor, it's shortsighted too. This is classic prisoner's dilemma stuff -- the incentives to cooperate are not always there, but if the two sides do cooperate in looking out for the enterprise's future, both of them will always win in the long run.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 78): the union can be sure that the company will not agree to a level higher than that.

Nope. That attributes god-like powers of foresight to management. Management are humans and fail all the time. The union needs to be looking out for its own long-term interest, not assuming that management will handle it.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): The worker is hired to make his company money. It's the very core of the capitalistic economy we live under.

False. The worker is hired to fulfill the contractual obligations, written or otherwise, he has with his company. If he is in sales, then yes, he has an obligation to make the company money through selling tickets and other various gizmos. If he is a flight attendant, he must fulfill duties that provide for passenger safety and well-being, which generally do not have anything to do with making money. Selling booze, headsets, credit cards and food, however, do count as making money for the company, and those are also a part of many flight attendants' contractual obligations. What the worker is not hired to do, however, is leave money on the negotiating table that could improve his quality of life or agree to working conditions that are uncompetitive with those at other carriers, that lower morale or create hardships for himself or his family. Those expectations are NEVER a part of either a collective bargaining agreement or terms of employment mutually agreed upon by an individual and a company. It is important to distinguish what a worker's obligations are as an employee and what his obligations are as a union member or a private individual. Our society unfortunately tends to blur these roles, and that tricks many into thinking that what is good for one's employer is always good for oneself. I'm happy to not be as foolish.

I voted yes. Was it a great deal? No. Was it a good deal? Mostly. Would we have gotten anything better by the end of the year? According to the NMB, not only no but not in 2013 either based upon what is currently industry standard and trending.

What DALPA & DL are attempting to do is break the tradition cycle of negotiations of arguing for several years with no raises before finally settling on an agreement. Those years of no raises makes the agreement have to be that much better to break even. There is inherent value to keeping the renewals coming. I'll give an example. Let's say that we have 2 pilot groups each making $100 hr at the starting point of our timeline where pilot A followx the DL/DALPA experiment of a continual extension (using round numbers of 10, 5, 5% raises) and pilot B follows the tried and true method of shooting for the moon to get a 35% raise but taking 2 years to get it which follows:

Year Pilot A. Pilot B.
0. 100. 100
1. 110. 100
2. 115. 100
3. 121. 115
4. 133. 120
5. 140. 126
6. 147. 133
7. 162. 133
8. 170. 133
9. 178. 153
10. 196. 160

You can see that after 10 years of this the AA pilot, I mean pilot B is way behind but he feels like he stuck it to the company with his 35% raise. I'll take plan A thank you very much.


727forever

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 80):

The airline industry is littered with the remains of companies where the employees didn't think they had any stake in whether the company was profitable or not. Airline employees may not directly make money for the company, but they still "make" money for the company, no matter where they work AND, even if they don't make money directly, they certainly have a stake in making sure the company stays profitable. They may not know it or think they don't, but they do. And, at least in DL's case, with profit sharing, now, they CERTAINLY do.

Heck, maybe DL is saving good money on the mass of Ready Reserve positions that only seem to be available. Seeing quite a few co-workers who work their tails off everyday and not be able to escape the RR world is disheartening.

Quoting NWAdeicer (Reply 83): Heck, maybe DL is saving good money on the mass of Ready Reserve positions that only seem to be available. Seeing quite a few co-workers who work their tails off everyday and not be able to escape the RR world is disheartening.

Figures you would take it OFF topic..............  

Sorry, my apologies. I thought the discussion was about saving money, pensions, COLA. Those types of things.

Quoting mayor (Reply 82): The airline industry is littered with the remains of companies where the employees didn't think they had any stake in whether the company was profitable or not.

My point was that it is not a worker's job to sweep his own interests under the rug in the name of making his company money. If a company wants to give workers the impression that they really do affect the profitability of their company by handing out "profit sharing checks", so be it, but that is a tactic used to persuade workers that a company's profitability is dependent upon THEM. The reality is that a company's success depends on so many moving parts that the input of an individual worker gets lost in the machine. What a given work group does or does not achieve in terms of contract negotiations has little to do with the overall profitability of a company. If labor costs are high, so be it, but it is not the responsibility of the union or individual workers to ensure their conditions of employment remain competitive. At the end of the day, a company will negotiate the best agreement it can; whether or not such an agreement is sustainable over time depends on many unforeseeable factors that are not the purview of the union nor the individual.

On top of that, why is it important that a company continue to survive if the workers will not agree to the conditions required to continue the enterprise? Are they not the group with the most to lose? Yes, some employees would start from scratch somewhere else or see years of unemployment, but at least we would have fewer companies with substandard working conditions if such companies simply failed instead of continuing their miserable existence.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 86): What a given work group does or does not achieve in terms of contract negotiations has little to do with the overall profitability of a company

I think all you have to do is look at the balance sheet of a certain airline based in Dallas to prove how wrong that statement is.

Quoting NWAdeicer (Reply 83): Seeing quite a few co-workers who work their tails off everyday and not be able to escape the RR world is disheartening.

  

^Truth^

Quoting mayor (Reply 84): Figures you would take it OFF topic..............

It might be tangental, but it *is* related to what you've been writing about employees having a vested interest in the company, etc. There may be some outliers, but for the most part RR's don't have any interest in the company's long term success. They're here to pass ride for a few years and then move on. Even worse is when we're lucky enough to get ones that *do* want to hang around and help build this place, only to be stuck in the RR vortex. Yeah, LGA, and a few other cities may upgrade people, but the vast majority of stations don't- and won't in the near/medium term.

For those of us that are in it for the long haul, watching career minded employees- and their decades of institutional knowledge- race for the exits, only to be replaced by itinerant employees is, well, disheartening...



[Edited 2012-06-30 17:02:55]

[Edited 2012-06-30 17:04:06]