Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-05-2011, 11:48 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
DPA and this contract
I am all for hearing about DPA, in fact I think it is a good thing to have options explained. DALPA is our representation right now. I for one, want only one union in the mix for this up coming contract. DPA while I am confident has some better ideas, it will only hurt the Delta pilot group in the next contract. Management would love to take advantage of any fracture in unity in the next several months. DPA has that affect, and sorry to say ALPA national is responsible. But for the good of DAL pilots and our next negotiation I would rather see DPA put together a very detailed org. plan/financial plan and prove that they do have a better way forward without reinventing the wheel and present it to the DALPA group for a vote at a time when the risks of facing a very serious issue regarding decertification are not coincident with a contract negotiation. This is my only problem with alternate representation at this time. Timing is not right and will only hurt..... despite best intentions.
No I am not happy with DALPA in every aspect. But I am not willing to re-invest my future at this moment in DPA with the timeline so critical in front of us. Timing in my opinion is just not right. Before all those "you must be an ALPA apologist DL south guy" chime in and tell me it is why we need DPA now and not later. Sorry folks, that ship has sailed for the next year or so..... Lets be vocal and clear about what we want DALPA to do now for us and move forward together.
Just my 2 cents....
No I am not happy with DALPA in every aspect. But I am not willing to re-invest my future at this moment in DPA with the timeline so critical in front of us. Timing in my opinion is just not right. Before all those "you must be an ALPA apologist DL south guy" chime in and tell me it is why we need DPA now and not later. Sorry folks, that ship has sailed for the next year or so..... Lets be vocal and clear about what we want DALPA to do now for us and move forward together.
Just my 2 cents....
07-05-2011, 12:03 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
The analysis of CY96 is interesting, but it's relevance escapes me. O'Malley is going to be different than Moak, who was different than Malone. Yet Giambusso's legacy still casts a great shadow through our Administration's continuity.*
Our MEC is in a tough situation. Pilot expectations are high and fueled by web board politics which mostly pushes in one direction without a whole lot of logical analysis.
Having already allowed greater than 50% outsourcing, we are a minority player in what is "Delta" flying. The RLA harshly restricts what we can do with the diminished leverage we actually wield.
People get spitting mad when our MEC Reps talk pragmatic numbers which barely exceed (or match) real inflation. But, unless United, US Air and American bring their contracts up to slightly better than Delta standard we are going to have very little external support for our demands and not much internal leverage either.
Our MEC is in a tough situation. Pilot expectations are high and fueled by web board politics which mostly pushes in one direction without a whole lot of logical analysis.
Having already allowed greater than 50% outsourcing, we are a minority player in what is "Delta" flying. The RLA harshly restricts what we can do with the diminished leverage we actually wield.
People get spitting mad when our MEC Reps talk pragmatic numbers which barely exceed (or match) real inflation. But, unless United, US Air and American bring their contracts up to slightly better than Delta standard we are going to have very little external support for our demands and not much internal leverage either.
Scope recapture can be mostly cost neutral and we should close those loopholes while we can in order to capture the high ground for future battles. Every contract is Gettysburg. Better to strategically position troops in defensible positions than to throw yourself against the enemy based on emotional, tactical, charges in the open.
Moak deserves great credit for leveraging opportunity when available. Instead of frontal attacks he had carefully crafted guerrilla actions which netted the pilots some very tangible benefits.
Moak believed outsourcing was beneficial for Delta pilots and I've not seen any sign the MEC administration has had any change of heart. Unfortunately they ARE divorced from the mainline pilots. In many ways they have to be. We enjoy the luxury of web board battles with no real loss of resources other than our time. Our Reps have to maintain very real relationships in order to accomplish the work they do.
* It is my opinion (and just my opinion) that we need to refresh our Administration. I am surprised this has not already happened. Contract 2000 WAS a high water mark, but it was also enforcement disaster. It was being modified by concession within six months of ratification. It's most important provisions were modified at least 7 times with repeat concessions in scope and compensation. Frankly, these concessions are objective signs of failure.
Moak believed outsourcing was beneficial for Delta pilots and I've not seen any sign the MEC administration has had any change of heart. Unfortunately they ARE divorced from the mainline pilots. In many ways they have to be. We enjoy the luxury of web board battles with no real loss of resources other than our time. Our Reps have to maintain very real relationships in order to accomplish the work they do.
* It is my opinion (and just my opinion) that we need to refresh our Administration. I am surprised this has not already happened. Contract 2000 WAS a high water mark, but it was also enforcement disaster. It was being modified by concession within six months of ratification. It's most important provisions were modified at least 7 times with repeat concessions in scope and compensation. Frankly, these concessions are objective signs of failure.
Why is it that today there is nobody in the MEC who publicly believes that we should move towards open and free elections of the MEC President by the members?
Why does our union continue today with a system that does not allow us to elect our MEC President?
I for one want a sustainable contract. My ego does not require achievement of "bragging rights." I'm plenty confident the quality of the work Delta pilots do is self evident. I want ALPA to negotiate a contract which encourages Delta to grow organically, securing the jobs and promotional opportunities that will result in greater pay across our seniority list as Captains hold better flying on preferred equipment, First Officers upgrade and new pilots get hired.
imo as long as DCI and Alaska exists we cannot grow organically. I'm being practical, that will not change in this contract and thus there is no pragmatic way at this point and given our current markets to grow organically in the short term.
That whipsaw will not be allowed to end because the primary goal with DCI is to have a whipsaw. If it wasn't, then DCI's would be merged are left only to one carrier.
What would net you the greatest return? A 25% raise with stagnation (or demotion as we outsource) or a 15% raise with a seat or equipment upgrade and holding a better schedule? (pick your own percentages, that's not the point here ... stagnation and demotion does hurt, as I'm not yet back to second year pay as an involuntary result of both)
How does low or no pay increases increase movement unless it encourages the only form of movement we will enjoy for years to come, retirements.
07-05-2011, 12:54 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
If that behavior is your idea of the company loving the idea of a DPA, they have a weird way of showing it. You have no evidence to back up your opinion. None.
Carl
07-05-2011, 01:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Sure he does. Even DPA recognized it when they said they needed to hit their recruitment drive by the beginning of this year. At the time they said they'd have an election in April and would take over with plenty of time to prepare for Section 6. They blew right through their own deadline and then eliminated it from their website.
That's transparent.
That's transparent.
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
07-05-2011, 01:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Thank you gloopy. Well said!
07-05-2011, 02:03 PM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I do see your point. However I can't fault people for being suspiscious given the track records, the inherent conflict of interest and what isn't said all put together.
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
Very well said, and spot on, IMO. Thank you!
07-05-2011, 02:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
I do see your point. However I can't fault people for being suspiscious given the track records, the inherent conflict of interest and what isn't said all put together.
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
07-05-2011, 02:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 351
I do see your point. However I can't fault people for being suspiscious given the track records, the inherent conflict of interest and what isn't said all put together.
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
That, in and of itself, doesn't "prove" ALPA will do a bad job this time around. But it does warrant significant concern.
If there is a case before the Supreme Court, I don't need to wait for Sotomayor's dissent dissertation to figure out how she is going to rule. Knowing her political tendencies and knowing that she has no problem reverse engineering a decision through ad hoc idealogical "interpretation" to match her pre-existing viewpoints, I (and everyone else) could very easily figure out exactly how she will rule on just about anything, many months before she actually does, and it isn't because anyone has ESP. Because of her track record, conflict of interest and what she says and doesn't say, and her history of lying to get the appointment in the first place for the sole purpose of being in a position to legislate from the bench to effect social change she personally believes in, I know how she is going to rule and how she will justify it in her written opinion.
ALPA OTOH isn't as 100% clearly defined, and their only current potential alternative doesn't have a long track record either, so its unfair to say that ALPA is 100% wrong 100% of the time. But it is absolutely fair to be guarded and suspiscious of the very institution that has erred very severly, in some cases consistently, in recent history and also has a pre-existing conflict of interest going forward, and that also been unwilling to firmly state what should be obvious; significant contract restoration, SWA plus and at least a very significant degree of outsourcing reversal should be no brainers. And all of that can be stated, quite firmly, far outside the specific confines of any offocial "contract opener".
SWA plus pay and scope, and an end to the 9-11 emergency bankruptcy interest and principal free decade long loan/gift/sacrifice. Those should be no brainers for ALPA but they aren't. We don't need a survey for that. Especially a survey that can be "interpreted" and double especially a survey we may never get to fully see. But even if we all say pay is number one, neglecting to make scope reversal the first priority is inexcusable. Scope is pay. Scope is retirement. Scope is work rules. Scope is vacation. Not only can Scope not successfuly be sold for any of those things, the more scope you sell the more you guarantee those other things will be threatened, sooner and more severely, even if they do get a temporary buff at DOS.
So in that respect, it doesn't matter what the survey says because scope reversal must occur for anything else meaningful and sustainable to occur. Likewise, obviously pay will go up, but SWA plus is the floor so even a year out of an official opener, I see no reason why ALPA can't be saying that. SWA+ is the floor for narrowbodies, and obviously widebodies will get more. SWA rigs and reserve guarantee are the floor. Significant scope reversal is the floor. Our opener merely reflects our fantasy contract, which will be well above those floors, and we will bargain in good faith to meet in the middle.
ALPA is clearly not doing that. Again, that in and of itself doesn't mean they will fold like a cheap suit, but it gives significant cause for concern that they won't state the obvious for the future given some significant errors of the past as well as an ongoing conflict of interest going forward.
No matter what the opener is, we will be told that is our will and its what the survey said, but we all know how questions are asked can effect the validity of the survey itself, and of course you can't ignore the laws of economical physics like scope. Even if its not high up on the survey, its still the number one issue, by far, because it is every single other issue long term. It should therefore be very easy to state as much. Significant scope reversal and SWA+ are floors, and it shouldn't be considered pre-survey taboo to state something as insanely obvious as that. When its not, we are all right to start questioning motives and intents.
Wholly awesome posts batman!!!
07-05-2011, 03:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
here again "pay per block hour" comparison straight from SWAPA
http://www.swapaluv.com/
Cheers
George
http://www.swapaluv.com/
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
