DAL TA as per Council 20 Chair Tom Tucker

[PCL_128]

Very interesting. Now PCL and General- is he a troll as well?

No, not at all. I actually have a great deal of respect for Captain Tucker. His views of how an MEC should be run pretty much jive with mine. I agree with many of his points, especially as they relate to process and MEC administration. I just disagree with his conclusions about bargaining leverage in this situation. Reasonable people can disagree.

 

[waveflyer]

But I'm a troll for disagreeing with you, making the exact argument? Got it.

Think captain Tucker. Will help you get on with delta??
I'm sure he's stoked out of his mind that you agree with him on how to run an MEC.

 

[PCL_128]

But I'm a troll for disagreeing with you, making the exact argument? Got it.

You don't make the same exact argument. In fact, your arguments couldn't possibly be more different. Captain Tucker's argument is that they didn't receive appropriate bargaining credits for the relief on 76-seat RJs. Your argument is that they shouldn't provide the relief at all under any circumstances. He just wants more money. You want unrealistic demands on a permissive subject of bargaining. Huge differences.

 

[redflyer65]

More money for larger RJs. Got it.

 

[waveflyer]

Still advocating a NO vote. And his arguments for that no vote are exactly what I've been saying. Everybody has their price- the bottom line logic is delta is selling out large RJs for not very much in return. And he agrees that the scare tactic that this is an improvement to scope is just not true.

Your idea that a permissive bargaining item means every airline can always expand scope is invalid. Ridiculous even. Refute that and I'll poke holes a offensive lineman can walk through.
But I do think you'd be right at home at delta.

 

[waveflyer]

More money for larger RJs. Got it.

Exactly. DALPA just doesn't get it.

 

[PCL_128]

Your idea that a permissive bargaining item means every airline can always expand scope is invalid.

That has never been my argument. You clearly don't understand basic areas of labor law such as permissive and mandatory subjects of bargaining.

 

[waveflyer]

Enlighten me with your wisdom.

Why does ALPA HAVE to outsource more -900's than it had agreed on in bk?

 

[redflyer65]

Because the whole idea of larger RJs are a complete ruse to get exactly what DL management wants.

1- They are tied directly to those 50 seaters, with engine replacement cost on the immediate horizon. They get a free pass here.

2- They want larger RJs. They get them under the cover of less economic viabiltiy of the smaller RJs. PS - they are gone anyway!

3- They pay for any pay rate increase by reducing the Profit Sharing. Are you kidding me?

Wow.

 

[General Lee]

Because the whole idea of larger RJs are a complete ruse to get exactly what DL management wants.

1- They are tied directly to those 50 seaters, with engine replacement cost on the immediate horizon. They get a free pass here.

2- They want larger RJs. They get them under the cover of less economic viabiltiy of the smaller RJs. PS - they are gone anyway!

3- They pay for any pay rate increase by reducing the Profit Sharing. Are you kidding me?

Wow.

Not exactly right, and you know that if this TA passes. The leases on the 50 seaters go on for years, so this is a chance to get rid of them sooner, and to get 1 newer 76 seater for essentially 3 older 50 seaters. That is a good deal. If they don't do this, they keep the 50s for years. This gets rid of them sooner, which is better for all of us. The profit sharing cutback does NOT go into effect until the Spring of 2014 (next Febuary 14th there will still be the same percentage amount--15% as the past two years), and if there are profits exceeding $2.5 billion (pre tax), then the profit sharing GROWS to 20%, instead of reducing from 15% to 10%. In the meantime, the pay rates were increased by 2.5% (from 6% to 8.5%, year 1 of the 3 year contract) this upcoming Jan 1st to make sure that even if there are NO profits coming up, there will still be extra money for the pilots each year, so it locks in a guaranteed "profit" each year, instead of hoping there is one. Someday you may understand.


Bye Bye---General Lee