Unions dig in for Delta fight

[Dignity]

Luke,
I was referring to violation of seniority..strictly in the scenario.. in the post regarding "ratio placement" only.
It could be viewed as a violation of seniority to take a junior employee, and ratio them
senior to another and subject the "senior" employee to A-days and the junior employee(with the new ratio
seniority to no A-days) is that a little clearer? sorry for any misunderstanding.

Luke, I understand there will be change, and with that change... as long as everyone is treated
with respect in all areas(including seniority), this merger has a potential of great success.. Reserve reform is an issue that needs to be addressed(but done fairly) as straight reserve can be a bit lengthy at our airline..in my opinion.

Have a great evening!

 

[Dignity]

Luke,
and thank you for your reply!

 

[Alice Cramden]

Alice Cramden,
All employees have a "core function" regardless of the job title, they are all important for the daily
success and the operations of the airline. The pilot situation, as I see it, they are qualified to fly generally a specific aircraft and limited to bidding that aircraft. It appears many have been waiting years in order to
transfer, train and move to either seat(on another aircraft). When you have individuals who have been waiting for bidding on new aircraft or or in this case a "career expectation" the merging of seniority list in that instance becomes... a bit more complicated, due to the fact the pilot has been limited, and has been waiting. It is irrelevant how many fly in the cockpit when you have to take into consideration the total number of the entire group who has different expectation or expect to remain on their current aircraft(you have to look at the total numbers not how many in the cockpit at one time). If the airline had one specific aircraft fleet(pure 737) it would only make sense that it would be D.O.H. simply because that is the only aircraft available to bid. When you take into consideration an airline may have 5 aircraft plus and also adding more to the fleet, based on the fact the pilot has been limited(because of fences,arbitrator awards, mergers) the process almost always ends up in arbitration, and the only one who truly is guaranteed to be happy(when all is said and done) is the pilot who gets the number one position on the list!

I understand very well seniority. ALPA has never had a DOH. It would be unfair to DAL pilots to push them off the equipment they can currently hold. NWA got up to a 30% pay raise, equity, increased benefits, etc. NWA pilots are damn lucky to get the deal they got. DAL pilots got 3% pay raise and that's about it. USAir was dealt a fair deal. They were on the edge of BK again. America West bought them. They are lucky they still have a job. If they continue with the fighting, there will be no more. It will go to arbitration. And the list will not be DOH. DAL is buying NWA. DAL should have a better say of seniority. DAL pilots are not to sacrifice the bad deal NWA pilots made with all the green, red and blue books, fences, etc. That is a mess NWA needs to clean up at NWA pilot's expense, not DAL pilots. DAL doesn't have fences, and the books of many colors, NWA pilots want to create them again.

When the deal is done (not DOH), then everybody will be one happy family.

 

[Kev3188]

When the deal is done (not DOH), then everybody will be one happy family.

You could not be more wrong. Without DOH, unrest will rule the day.

And again, we've already addressed the fact that pilots have their own deal in the works. We're discussing everyone else.

Did you miss that the first time, or are you so blinded by your arrogance you just ignore what the unwashed masses post? You guys got your deal, so let the rest eat cake, right? :down:

 

[Dignity]

Alice Cramden,
I am sure you very much understand seniority and there fore understand that seniority cannot be bought.

The airline merger as I see it is beneficial in the long run to the continued success of the company,
communities they serve and the most valuable assets employees(as they are the airline), but they are not doing anyone any favors. The company has a responsibility
to treat their employees as equals and therefore, bring any newly merged employee under the current
pay scale(in this situation increase). In a situation where there is a union contract they first must negotiate that increase however that responsibility to bring them up to current pay steps is a requirement.
Why is a 30 percent pay raise not doing anyone a favor? Because I am full aware that raise, or any compensation can be taken away. So I dont quite buy the fact a 30 percent raise justifies seniority displacement, but fully understand what you are attempting to imply. Also, compensation is just that, that 30 percent increase is pay earned, one has to work to receive that amount, its not like winning the instant "30 percent raise lotto" and furthermore under a concessionary contract its not really a raise when one first must restore the entire concessionary amount and then any additional compensation on top of that amount, will then be deemed a raise.
A first year employee and a thirty year employee have the exact same job description and are required to perform their jobs as outlined, so because a first year employee receives a raise or makes more than the 30 year employee who made less when they were at that pay step(first year pay)... and pay step have stopped at year twelve.. doesn't mean the compensation they earn is doing them a favor, because the thirty year employee was there 29 years longer and made the company successful, that was their responsibility to do so in the first place. One cannot come back and say you are getting this raise and should be happy with it when the job expectation was to help the company become as successful as possible in order to secure additional compensation going forward for their group or any newly merged employee or any first year employee who just happens to make a higher amount as opposed to what was compensated in the past for that same pay step.

Alice Cramden, yes it will go to arbitration because its already there, and you are correct it more than likely will not be pure D.O.H. but then it will also not be a slam dunk for one or either, that is why I said the only person who ends up truly guaranteed happy is the pilot with the number one position.
There is no former mess the airlines need to be concerned with, it is irrelevant going forward, the focus should be to respect both groups contribution while keeping in mind the merger makes both groups stronger in the long run. The group need to stay focused on the future, keeping the past in sight but not solely dwelling on it. What needs to be considered is, what is fair to the employee with the most seniority accrual on both sides, not I fly a bigger airplane than you(even though you have been flying twice as long)
They may not have fences currently but allowing this to go to Arbitration, to some degree or another, they just may well.

 

[cooper43]

Can anyone answer my question about how fair it would be to do something like a zipper. Where it goes 1 for 1, down the entire list. It just seems like that way no one group looses or gains enough that it makes it unfair to anyone else.

Also Luke you made the statement that I feel as if I think the airline owes me something. That has nothing to do with my desire to get a fair shake in this deal. You seem to have the attitude that one can only express their opinion if they have over 30yrs seniority. This company doesnt belong to just one seniority group it belongs to all of us and I have a right to express my opinions on this forum. I am not being sarcastic in any of my remarks and I'm trying to just ask questions and state my ideas. Ultimately none of this really makes much difference. It will be the ones who are elected to negotiate or the arbitrator who make the final decsion. I am at least happy with the process we have in place to get to the final result. So have a nice day and please dont take the things I say personal towards any one person or group.

 

[Dignity]

Let say you have airline A and airline B merging...A one for one may disadvantage the senior group at the airline with the most Flight Attendants.
If one airline has 14000 Flight Attendants-A and another has 7000 Flight Attendants-B and you take number one at airline-A and number one at airline-B and go one for one down the list, that may benefit the group at the airline with the lowest number-B, especially if the airline with the 14000 Flight Attendants have a top heavy seniority list. Instead of the Flight Attendant being placed where their seniority number is supposed to fall with D.O.H. a one for one may actually result with the Flight Attendants-B falling in seniority range by giving a lower seniority number and placing them in the lowest third(most senior) of the seniority list instead of being placed in the middle of the list with D.O.H. Also you have to take into consideration, there will come a point on the list where the group of 7000 Flight Attendant numbers ends in that one for one, leaving a huge group at the airline with 14000-A at the bottom of the list even though new hires may be present in the list of 7000-B.
What ends up happening with that scenario is simply the mid level Flight Attendant-B is advantaged by being mixed in with the most senior-A while the most junior 2000(airline A Flight Attendants) is left at the bottom of the list.
Of course that is all subject to the actual seniority numbers at both airlines.

 

[cooper43]

Let say you have airline A and airline B merging...A one for one may disadvantage the senior group at the airline with the most Flight Attendants.
If one airline has 14000 Flight Attendants-A and another has 7000 Flight Attendants-B and you take number one at airline-A and number one at airline-B and go one for one down the list, that may benefit the group at the airline with the lowest number-B, especially if the airline with the 14000 Flight Attendants have a top heavy seniority list. Instead of the Flight Attendant being placed where their seniority number is supposed to fall with D.O.H. a one for one may actually result with the Flight Attendants-B falling in seniority range by giving a lower seniority number and placing them in the lowest third(most senior) of the seniority list instead of being placed in the middle of the list with D.O.H. Also you have to take into consideration, there will come a point on the list where the group of 7000 Flight Attendant numbers ends in that one for one, leaving a huge group at the airline with 14000-A at the bottom of the list even though new hires may be present in the list of 7000-B.
What ends up happening with that scenario is simply the mid level Flight Attendant-B is advantaged by being mixed in with the most senior-A while the most junior 2000(airline A Flight Attendants) is left at the bottom of the list.
Of course that is all subject to the actual seniority numbers at both airlines.

Thanks for the response, I see your point. It seems like someone will be disadvantaged any way you do things. And by disadvantaged I mean disadvantaged from what they would experience without the merger. Oh well I mostly will be happy to just have a job, who ever happens to be in the group that is screwed will just have to suck it up.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Also Luke you made the statement that I feel as if I think the airline owes me something. That has nothing to do with my desire to get a fair shake in this deal. You seem to have the attitude that one can only express their opinion if they have over 30yrs seniority. This company doesnt belong to just one seniority group it belongs to all of us and I have a right to express my opinions on this forum.

Cooper,
Please show me in my post where I say that only senior people should be able to express their opinions. OF COURSE, everyone has the right to express their opinions. Where did I say you don't have that right? You say I "seem to have" a certain attitude. You are projecting (negative) attitudes upon me that are nowhere to be found in my posting. Stating MY opinon that, based upon your writings, that you have a certain sense of entitlement doesn't mean I am trying to squelch your opinions.
I was making a statement, based on your previous postings, that you "seem to" have certain expectations with regards to your seniority and the future. We all do up to a point, but many of us who have been around a while know that they won't necessarily be met or that Delta is required to meet those expectations (in your case: holding what you are now or what you expect to in the near future.) All I'm saying is that it is just not the way this business has worked over the past 20+ years. As airline employees, we are subject to all sorts of external forces that can change our road map to our future including, but not limited to fuel prices, aircraft availability, the economy, government (Venezuela this week demanded that US carriers pull down many flights because the US issued a security warning about their airports).

So I would suggest you heed your own advice in not "taking things personally."
Thanks and have a great day.

 

[Dignity]

As Flight Attendants, we always know that change happens from one degree to another(it is the nature of our industry!)..
When change is proposed or shortly about to happen in the workplace, sometimes people will think
of how that change will negatively affect their schedules, their bidding, what they are going to hold in the future, who is coming into the base, just a host of different issues.
Did you know that the average person has nearly 60 thousand unique and different thoughts every day! sometimes when change is to occur the subconscious mind produces an idea or attitude that will
occur in the conscious mind, basically those thoughts just pop into someones head automatically especially that workplace change that is shortly going to happen during a discussion. It may not necessary mean someone has a bad attitude its just the way people react because of how our brains are wired. Because people may dwell on the fact or what they interpret may happen, and then come to a conclusion what will happen even if it will or not.
The problem is those thoughts end up being negative, those automatic thoughts deep in the subconscious come right out front and center, like that manager right there trying to do an appearance check while you are making your check in call on the phone at in flight check in. It just right there! right....there!
keep in mind this:
Successful and happy people act with high levels of purpose and integrity. They focus their actions and direct them to develop their contentment.
The issue may limit someone ability to accept change even if the result will be positive.
Its hard not to dismiss someones concern, but then its necessary to at least attempt to stay focused, that the change about to occur will more than likely be a 'good thing' ! One thing I have learned from the past regarding mergers, a base closing, a base opening, service done one way in 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999 and then service done another in 2008 is simply..
Everything, every issue eventually works it self out one way or another, what need to be done is to try and stay focused on the positive aspects and deal with the others that need attention with an open mind as they come along...remembering..
Its never as bad as we think it may be.

 

[Dignity]

Cooper43,
I will give you an example of someone who is truly "screwed"

That would be the individual who woke up at 0400 to catch the 0600 commuter flight to base
that ends up canceled, is bumped off the 0900 and cannot make their 1300 check-in
even though the 1900 departure and associated flight the night before was wide open and went out on time.

Thats "screwed"

 

[cooper43]

Cooper43,
I will give you an example of someone who is truly "screwed"

That would be the individual who woke up at 0400 to catch the 0600 commuter flight to base
that ends up canceled, is bumped off the 0900 and cannot make their 1300 check-in
even though the 1900 departure and associated flight the night before was wide open and went out on time.

Thats "screwed"

thats sounds nasty, i do not commute but sympathize with those who do.