DAL 88 Driver

So you're in the "give up and accept our profession being worth substantially less" camp? I'd rather try and fail then to give up and fail.

Also, not every company and situation is identical. Also, not every single step taken in the examples you cited above are necessarily the same exact steps we should take. The timing may be different too. But you seem to be saying that we should just resign our selves to "grabbing what we can" and forget about ever getting back to where we need to be. Unacceptable! And you're never going to get me (or thousands more like me) to sign off on that way of representation.

DAL 88 Driver

Here's where I think we disagree. Lee's tenure at DAL was a "salvage whatever you can and make the best of the bad situation at hand." The problem is that it was not forward looking at all! And it set a tone of acceptance of mediocrity (in terms of compensation) for our profession. I believe this tone ("expectation", if you will) is working and will work against us as we try to negotiate restoration. Sure, Moak's approach made us come out SLIGHTLY ahead in the short run. But it has handicapped us going forward and made restoration that much more difficult! I don't believe the COLA to our BK/emergency rates was worth the ultimate effect of this strategy.

tsquare

How has it handicapped us? At the risk of sounding like an apologist.. we have a contract.. albeit one that was negotiated during BK times.. it is in effect. How we got there is somewhat irrelevant. The question going forward is whether Tim O and the rest of the guys are willing to stand up and make everyone realize that we are working for 1990 rates.. with fewer benefits.. etc etc etc... If that means telling 0bama to pack sand.. they better do it. I agree with the get what you can now crowd.. but when section 6 time comes... as I have said, I want Randy Johnson throwing fastballs.. right into their ear holes....

DAL 88 Driver

On a couple of fronts.

1. It has caused many in our pilot group to have lowered expectations. You see it here all the time from the "ALPA apologists." You know... all the arguments about what Delta can or cannot afford. Whether an XX% increase is "reasonable" or not. These folks are either not dealing in mathematical reality, or they have given up on restoration. That kind of mentality can only serve to handicap us as we engage in negotiations to try and restore the value of our careers.

2. We are pretty much "on record" indicating that our pilot group is pretty happy with the way things are right now. Lee Moak so much as said it in his final letter as MEC Chairman when he bragged about our pay being back to where it was before bankruptcy! Tremendously misleading statement... and we all know the truth... but the average person in the media and, to an extent, the average person in management could easily read that statement and conclude that an agreement with very small pilot cost increases (in other words, something that would in no way be restorative) would be pretty easy to sell to our pilot group. Again, I think the tone that has been set will work against us in negotiations.

Splash

Nope. I'm in the "structure and effort we used to achieve the C2K rates we now wish to restore should be supported and encouraged" camp. ALPA got that contract through the unity and forward-looking focus of the Delta pilots. United had gotten a big-step contract just before, and ALPA pattern-bargained C2K. You like C2K. You'd like to set that as our baseline.

Me too.

This thread is about the DPA. The DPA doesn't have the unity, structure, or support to get us C2K-style gains. Their advisors and law firm are losers (PFAA, AMFA, etc). Their unity building consists largely of "ALPA sucks!".

The problem for them is for every Carl, DAL 88, etc out there - unconvinced that ALPA can unite them properly into a rocking contract - there are 5 guys like me that think the "unifying" message of DPA rings dangerously hollow. 10,000+ non-card-submitting pilots are shouting. Can you hear their vote?

My apologies. My message could have been clearer. I have never stated that we should "...forget about ever getting back to where we need to be." Ever. If I've given you that impression, please accept this as an unambiguous clarification: I want BETTER Scope than we had pre-C2K, and I want MORE pay and better work rules than C2K. Now that we've gotten gains during the second half of the decade while our peers were failing to get anything, it's time to take advantage of our momentum.

In context: DPA can't do that. ALPA's track record proves they can.

acl65pilot

I agree 100%.

DAL 88 Driver

Only one problem with your premise. C2K increases were not anything like the kind of increases that you and I both agree will be necessary to restore our profession. The "structure and effort" you talk about was used to correct the 1996 concessionary contract rates with about a 35% increase. The company was making record profits (kind of like today) and a couple of other major airlines had far surpassed our 1996 concessionary rates. While I'll certainly give some credit to the strategy that was used under the circumstances, I think you also have to recognize that we were in very favorable circumstances. Could we have lived with something somewhat less than +35%? I think we could have. That, however is not the case today. We cannot afford to make anything less than very significant progress towards restoration with this next contract. It sounds like you and I agree on that. And +35% would be nowhere near sufficient to restore our buying power.

Now, we're digging out of an initial 42% hole on rates. We've had what amount to a few cost of living increases to these BK/emergency rates. Bottom line is that it would take about +70% to get us back to the buying power we had prior to the massive, unprecedented pay cuts. There is a HUGE difference between getting a 35% increase under ideally favorable conditions, and getting a +70% increase under conditions that are not likely to be completely favorable. Do you really think that the same strategy used for C2K is going to get us anything like +70%? How about partial restoration at +50%?

See, what your kind of thinking is doing IMO, is setting us up for failure. I'm glad that you agree we should be pursuing restoration. But again, how do we achieve something so monumental without formally identifying it as our objective and setting the appropriate tone and expectations? I don't see it getting done with Lee Moak's strategy. Not in a million years!

There is perhaps some truth to what you say. Or at least it may appear to be a legitimate criticism. IMO, DPA has not done a particularly good job of addressing some of these concerns. But, again, absent a significant change in strategy from ALPA, I am willing to give something else a try. Like I said before... I'd rather try and fail than fail to try!

DAL 88 Driver

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? Right now, I'm picturing an acl65pilot bobble head doll (wearing an ALPA pin) on the dash of my car!

(Sorry... just pulling your chain, ACL!)

acl65pilot

I think I have added my constructive points to the debate. Frankly I saw you post as starting at square one, in which if I responded, we would rehash the same things again.

Splash

You gave me a lot of percentages, and the basis for them.

Can you give me what those percentages would be had we NOT achieved the gains we did under Lee Moak's leadership?

Are they more, or less?

A successful merger, and gains for us. From your posts I gather you don't think much of Lee. The percentages necessary to achieve your goals, and our performance measured against our peers suggest you're not judging his strategy fairly.