Delta Pilots Association
01-17-2011, 10:31 AM
#4122
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.
In short, the "results" our MEC has been looking for seem to be quite a bit different (short of) the results just about every other pilot I know or have worked with and I are looking for.
01-17-2011, 10:53 AM
#4123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Word. Hopefully we don't fall for it this time (although it will be the "reward" of a pay cookie [which we WILL get anyway] versus the "stick" of pretend liquidation).
01-17-2011, 11:12 AM
#4124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
It was in fact the last item negotiated. What you have to consider however is that the aircraft was already permitted under LOA 46 and already in service with Delta with 69 seats. The question was would a judge make Delta fly the aircraft around with less then optimal seating while trying to emerge from Chapter 11. I don't think that was a issue we were going to win. The agreement also increased the numbers but again I think the judge would have ruled for the Company. Remember that shortly before Delta management had somehow managed to have Judge Prudance removed from the case and her replacement was a hard core anti labor Bush judge.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.
Last time we got hoodwinked by the stick, this time they will try the same foundation eroding trick with the carrot. They might even try and place a wedge right into the sweet spot of the "retiring within this contract" demographic and hit the hammer hard hoping that target fixation and myopia once again yields to 50%+1 becoming Overcome By Events and creaming over Section 3.
What they are not counting on, IMHO, is the fact that a majority of pilots in all demographics won't fall for it this time. The threats and lies were told, the sacrifices made, the MBA crowd literally danced on the graves of the fallen after 9-11 by cutting way too deeply and excessively, sucker punching working pilots and stabbing the retired in the backs all while paying themselves record compensation and outsourced half the flights, block hours and pilot jobs. They will now likely attempt to further capitalize on their own trechery by playing one part of the list with the most to [directly] lose from further scope erosion against another part of the list with a half hearted effort/promise to partially make up for a fraction of what was stolen from them in the first place, all the while trying to shift the blame from themselves and their ilk to their fellow pilots who may dare to resist that particular scheme.
If and when they try that tactic though, in whatever semi-creative form, the bigger the bribe is, the more they will admit they can afford. Whatever their "offer" with scope relief will become our new expectation without scope relief. Its not for sale and in fact some will be given back. This time we can even make up some phony "bargaining credit" they can apply. Just take it off our high water opener, which was padded by that much to begin with.
Concession store closed. No soup for you. Come back, 30 years. Next!
01-17-2011, 04:18 PM
#4125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: DL
Posts: 154
01-17-2011, 06:57 PM
#4126
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
01-17-2011, 07:00 PM
#4127
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
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.
Carl
01-17-2011, 07:04 PM
#4128
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
It's all water under the bridge and many ifs and buts from both sides of the argument. I am not saying I am 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.
Carl
01-17-2011, 07:10 PM
#4129
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I just got a very nice and thoughtful e-mail response from him. Highlights:
"I recorded a video last week that further addresses scope. It should be in
your V-file soon."
"We will work to continue the current trends: increasing mainline (domestic and international) ASMs, increasing mainline aircraft and hiring pilots. "
"I recorded a video last week that further addresses scope. It should be in
your V-file soon."
"We will work to continue the current trends: increasing mainline (domestic and international) ASMs, increasing mainline aircraft and hiring pilots. "
It's what I expected. The only question is whether these folks will be moveable in the direction of reversing outsourcing. Will they be willing to change their deeply held views if enough of us make it painfully clear that we don't agree with the Scope status quo.
Carl
01-17-2011, 07:12 PM
#4130
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Why don't any of the union types ever say this? All we ever hear (from BK and such) is a justification of the actions, and never any admission of fault or that it was not a good choice.
That is a good 80% of my issue with them... not taking any fault= they have the complete inability to see what was wrong with the actions taken, and following from that the inability to make corrective action in the future.
That is a good 80% of my issue with them... not taking any fault= they have the complete inability to see what was wrong with the actions taken, and following from that the inability to make corrective action in the future.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
