shiznit

"The Contract survey is the first step towards a strike vote"
-Capt. Donatelli

What has more leverage for Negotiators: a 53% turnout for a strike vote or 99% turnout for a strike vote?

If we get 99% of our fellow pilots to do the survey, it gives the NC a strong mandate at the table to get much more of what we ask.

If only half do the survey, well, that's not nearly the same amount of leverage for the NC is it?

Are you going to help IMPROVE the NC's leverage to get a better deal or are you going to REDUCE the NC's leverage?

If you are satisfied with 4/8/3/3 sure, let's have only 53% do the survey again.

RonRicco

I have to agree with Shiz on this, and I guess Carl as well. Pilots give input/direction in many different ways. Look at the CDO issue, there was no survey or poll (that I know of anyway) but pilots gave input directly to their reps and were heard.

With a 53 percent response rate on a survey, that certainly leaves the door open that 47 percent of pilots with differing (or maybe the same) views gave input to their reps in alternative ways and unless we consider the survey the ultimate mandate, that form of input must be factored in as well.

How do you make the survey the ultimate, or at least the heaviest weighted mandate? 100 percent participation. For every pilot that refuses to fill it out, the less statistically valid it becomes.

Say we only end up with 40 percent that fill it out this time and the vote on CDO's is slightly "no", but the squeaky wheel this time happens to be people that are in favor. The rep is going to have to make more of a judgement call when it come to saying "no to cdo" than he otherwise would have if the participation rate was 100 percent.

The survey is but one form of input. The less participation, the more discretion you are giving to your reps. For me, that isn't exactly an option I am thrilled about considering the 117 issue.....

scambo1

Alan,
I have a tough time believing that the reps didn't also get an earful from 330 guys on the rest facility.

But, generally speaking, I agree with you that including CDOs on the survey is not a guarantee that we will see them in c15, but possibly a gauge of sentiment on them from the pilot group as a whole. However, there is clearly a faction on the MEC that won't let them die.

I truly wish I had a glass half full view on the union. Unfortunately, with me they have an uphill battle to regain "trust." In fact, they have an uphill battle to regain "trust but verify" with me.

People jump on hockey pilot for saying what he said, but at least I understand where he is coming from...whether or not his view is constructive.

Alan Shore

I am certain that they got an earful when the bunk went away. What I'm saying is that I doubt they got an earful saying "good job" when the TA brought it back. Guys typically contact their reps only when there is something negative to report.

Could be. It could also be that the MEC is merely thinking ahead as to what management may come after and wants our opinion on each of those subjects, e.g., CDOs, pay banding, sick leave verification, etc. I saw questions on a number of such possible Company asks in the survey. The closer we get to 100% participation, the more clearly and loudly our voices will be heard on those issues.

scambo1

Okay, I understand what you meant on the 330 now.

I agree that participation on the survey needs to be as close to 100% as possible. In fact, I think it should be mandatory or you can't fly. However, that's not reality.

I do think the company will certainly revisit sick leave.

sailingfun

Speaking of the 330, do they have a hot mike system or does Delta cut the wires to that feature?

LeineLodge

I fully expect them to revisit a lot of things. We need our MEC and NC to be fully aware of the majority of the group's desires so they can confidently relay our position - which in most cases will be "we're not interested in any givebacks/concessionary items in this era of wild profitability."

If management doesn't ask, they're not doing their job. If we can't/won't be bothered to give our input (survey, speaking with your reps, etc) then we're not doing ours. Hockey's position is a copout. Everyone else's opinion will be a little more heavily weighted in his absence, but our collective voice won't be as loud.

100% participation

orvil

I completed the survey. I commented on a few items. I made a good effort. I believe I saw most of the pitfalls.

It did seem like it was composed by a dysfunctional family. My conclusion after completing the process, I definitely felt that I was being steered. Maybe someone had good intentions, but they got bulldozed by the others.

As intellectual exercise it would be interesting to have a professional pollster red pencil the survey.

iceman49

The 330 does have a hot mike feature.

hockeypilot44

Did that last time. Passed by a large margin. The one thing I was adamant about in that survey was no more large regional jets. TA came out allowing more large regional jets.

I already have a pretty good idea of what our TA is going to have concessions wise. A relief from the JV language, CDOs, higher ALV, pay banding of some sort, a change to our sick leave, and probably something I haven't thought of yet like maybe a longer seat lock. I just hope the gains are bigger than the concessions.