Wasatch Phantom

I've got a few observations on past contract voting and a question.

This is not meant to be confrontational, but honestly guys (and gals) talk tough in the pilot lounge and in the cockpit, but they vote in the privacy of their homes. They think about their mortgage and car payments, putting food on the table, etc and despite their tough talk, they vote "yes".

I do think that a very significant percentage of Delta pilots built their lifestyle (and spending) based upon contract 2000. They were not adequately prepared (financially) to fight during the 1113 debacle, they were scared, and they voted "yes".

Perhaps (hopefully) the demographic change in the makeup of the Delta pilot group with the addition of former NWA pilots will make things different this time....

Now the question:

Several posts have touted the expertise of ALPA nationals E&FA team. As I remember contract '96 and the years thereafter, I remember DALPA brought us a very concessionary contract and said "it was the best they could do", etc. As I understand it, ALPA national's E&FA team advised our negotiators.

Shortly after the contract was signed Delta started reporting a string of record profits (at least partially funded by our concessions, IMHO).

If those guys from national are so great, how did they miss that (and advise us) so badly? What assurance(s) do we have they will get it right?

Seriously, this isn't meant to be inflammatory!

tsquare

Excellent points.

Superdad

Anyone who thinks ALPA national has our best interests at heart, when advising us whether to vote on a contract, is delusional. They care very little what our contract looks like, they don't work under it. Their only interest is to get a deal.

I don't begrudge them for this, they are doing their job. Getting a deal. It is up to us, line pilots, to read over the TA and ask questions of ALPA, not to get their opinion on how to vote, but to understand what is being offered. Anyone who sits in a roadshow and listens to ALPA's opinion and advice is an idiot. Of course they recommend voting for the deal, they wouldn't have brought it to you if they thought it was $hit!

For the sake of all of us I sincerely hope that our pilot group reads the TA, when the time comes, asks questions to enhance our understanding but don't waste your time asking ALPA for opinion or advice.

Pineapple Guy

Because they're economic and financial analysts, not psychics?

Why did the real estate bubble occur, if the Fed is so smart?
Why did the tech bubble occur, if Wall Street is so smart?
Why are we about to enter a Depression, if our governmental leaders are so smart?

Why didn't we buy Gold/Silver beginning in 2000, if we are so smart? We could have retired, if we'd done that.

Pineapple Guy

Wow.......

Superdad

Really, you seek ALPA's opinion and advice? Let me guess, their opinion and advice has always been something like this:

"This is the best deal we could get, we suggest you vote for it."

Good luck with that.

Learn to make up your own mind, do not take the advice of people who don't work under your contract.

scambo1

Wasnt he the guy that almost had a midair crossing the NATS? And who bought about 1000 acres of farmland in (at that time) a small town called Jackson Hole?

DAL 88 Driver

Wow. You didn't hear all the talk from our reps about all the boogeymen out there? You remember... the 1113 judge, the arbitrators, etc.?

"Well guys, this is the best we can do. If you don't vote for this, you never know WHAT the _____ (fill in the blank with judge, arbitrator, or the latest boogeyman) will do. We strongly recommend that you vote YES on this TA. Look at what happened to USAirways or United. At least we saved our work rules. If we don't vote for this, we could get United's work rules. Etc., etc., etc...."

DAL 88 Driver

And I'm not surprised.


I don't expect them to recommend voting against it. I expect them to stay out of it and let all of us use our own judgment about whether it is worthy of a yes vote or not. If they're going to have roadshows, then fine. Have roadshows... but only if it's necessary to clarify some aspect of the agreement. We don't need to be presented with a case IN FAVOR of the agreement. Just give us the facts and let us each make our own individual decisions.

I stand by what I said before. Without the full-court press sales pitch from our MEC and the scare tactics, there is no way a majority (or probably even a significant minority) would have voted for those agreements. In other words, if you let the agreements stand on their own merit (i.e. let each of us come to our own conclusions without any influence), there is no way those agreements would have come anywhere close to passing. No way to know for sure... so it's just your opinion versus mine. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. What I find insulting is to be given a sales pitch on an agreement, especially a deeply concessionary one. Just give me the facts and I am perfectly capable of doing my own analysis and making my own decision.

I realize that C2K+COLA might be too big of a "bite" all at once. I'm willing to be reasonable, given the economic realities. But I am NOT willing to vote for anything that doesn't make significant progress towards that. If you look at the actual math required for that, even the numbers for "significant progress" are going to have to be pretty big.

Like I said before, show me the agreement and I'll look at it objectively and make my own decision as to whether it is worthy of a YES vote. And I don't need a frikkin' infomercial to help me make my decision!

DAWGS

It's funny you talk of very low opinions, while just a few pages back you were trying to convince us all how little the airline pilot professional is actually worth.

I flew with ALPA negotiators and with management types while all this was going down and they both were operating from the same sheet of music. They used fear to get what they wanted. Fear is a very powerful tool.

I agree with 88 that facts should be given. Their opinion on the result of voting "no" should be withheld. I don't to this day think management or a judge would have burned this company down over the 76 seater. From what I understand that was the last item to negotiate. Our negotiators caved. It never should have made it to memrat.