gloopy

DPA crowd?

Like others have said, it depends on scope. Its not a matter of being "single issue" so much as scope is the foundational issue for all other issues. Losses in scope put enormous downward pressure on pay, retirement, work rules and everything else. We might be able to get a quick bump in one area if we gut more scope or even as a reward for keeping our massive outsourcing system in place, but long term we will always lose out when we outsource half our airline.

As for your pay question, again while it depends a lot on scope, SWA for small narrowbodies (and JB for our horrible current E190 rates) and up from there (plus reasonable premims) to account for our siginificant per pilot revenue premiums and again up from there for larger aircraft along the same ratios as today is the reasonable minimum hard deck floor to accept without a strike. I think that is very reasonable to the NMB rather than arbitrary emotional percentages based on high concepts like "restoration" or how many Kia Optimas you can buy with a month's salary or whatever.

I think that's very reasonable. What percentage do you think is reasonable, and how far below SWA for same sized aircraft would that put us? Hint: you can use pay rates or W-2 as long as the average small narrowbody FO makes around 150 and the small average narrowbody CA makes around 230 with other improvements om the contract as well like work rules and scope.

I hope that's not a "DPA crowd" issue either but to be fair, here's a general question for the ALPA crowd (I guess?):

Would you rather see DALPA open with current outsource limits of around half our flying at all levels (or even more outsourcing), or significantly stronger scope (kind of like what our biggest domestic competitor has)?

Would you rather see DALPA open with about the same amount of job outsourcing, or significantly bringing a lot of that back to our list?

TheManager

Good work Gloopy

DAL 88 Driver

I suspect that sums up our "strategic plan" quite well. The hard part (for DALPA) is to figure out how to rationalize/sell that to our pilot group without creating a windfall of cards for DPA.

Timbo

I've always been a supporter of DALPA, but not a blind lemming. They have put up some pretty lame T/A's and I've voted no for most of them starting with POS 96. If we don't see at least a 30% raise, along with lots of other -get backs- like a 6hr. a day minimum for everything; vacation, training days, DH only days, and $5/hr. per diem, etc. I'll be voting no again.

BUT... I don't see how a -new- organization is going to do any better, and certainly a new group will have zero clout or political 'friends' in DC, when it comes time to discuss Cabotage...and you know that's coming.

DAL 88 Driver

I don't see how a -new- organization could do any worse. We currently have an organization that not only refuses to define any kind of restorative objective... they actually argue against it.

I know we've been over it and over it here. But the percentage pay increase required to match our MD-88/90 pilots with SWA's pilots has been pretty well established. And it's MORE than 30%! Are you willing to go along with a contract that doesn't even bring our narrowbody domestic pilots up to W2 parity with SWA's narrowbody domestic pilots? How do you feel about the fact that DALPA has spent a great deal of effort presenting one-sided information that attempts to show us leading our "peers", does not address how much we've given up over the years, and also attempts to minimize the HUGE discrepancy between our pay and the pay of our most significant domestic competitor?

I have no idea whether DPA could do better or not. There is no track record there for me to evaluate. And, while I like a lot of things they have to say, I don't like some of the things they have said (or not said). What I do know is that I have ZERO confidence that DALPA is up to the task. That's kind of a show stopper for me.

Timbo

I don't think there are too many pilots who will vote yes to a T/A that doesn't AT LEAST match our 737 rates to SWA's 737 rates, and then go up from there. I think that's what I put on my Survey, ie. SWA + for our 737's. That's the simple part. But it's all those other details that will get the yes/no votes.

I've been p/o'd at National ALPA since they signed off on the B scale, which at the time, only American, a NON-ALPA carrier had! National could have 'drawn a line in the sand' (I can't even say that with a straight face!) way back then, and put a quick end to it back then, but instead they let that cancer into all ALPA contracts. They are completely unwilling to call for a SOS for...anything, not loss of retirements, or getting rid of Lorenzo, or...? and without that, they are a paper tiger, and Management knows it.

Now, how is any -new- organization going to be any better? They going to call a SOS?? And who's going to answer that call? And when the judge tells us to resume flying, are we going to say HELL NO, and go to jail?

Absent that conviction, we are pretty much screwed, and Management knows it, so does LM, that's what drives his "let's all just get along" strategy. I don't like it, but that's the political reality we all face.

OccupyRestSeat

I'm not that surprised.

shiznit

So.....are you planning on talking to your elected representative or not?

Maybe you could get an answer from a legitimate source before you go making such a sass remark.

I'm not all that concerned what you think of my satisfaction level with my rep. FYI, I do expect my rep to act on my behalf, and I have seen not just talk, but real action at our LEC level to affect change that is substantial and meaningful. My reps are most definitely not "company men", they have been very emphatic and active about improving everything they possibly can at their level.

If you refuse to acknowledge the reality that your LOCAL rep is accountable for representing your desires, then I don't understand what you think changing the bargaining agent will do to get your rep to listen to you more so than who presently represents you.

Take a look at a few of the last rounds of elections at the LEC level:
ATL 2CA/2FO...........replaced
NYC CA/FO..............replaced
MSP CA..................replaced

There was dissatisfaction with the stance and tone of those reps and they were tossed out and replaced with more aggressive reps.

DTW and SEA, just look at the newsletters they put out, they are DEFINITELY NOT OK with the status quo.

I don't know who your rep is, but seriously, call and ask.

Carl Spackler

Why would you even bother responding this way when you took my post so badly out of context? Here is how you quoted me:

Now here is what I actually said:

Notice a difference?

Carl

Carl Spackler

Yes that could happen, but not unless you are completely without a strategy. APA had no strategy except demanding restoration adjusted for inflation even though there was no other comparable in the industry for the NMB to consider. That strategy didn't work. We now have a leverage tool available to us - the SWAPA contract in its entirety. DALPA refuses to use it and worse, they are purposefully mischaracterizing what's in the SWAPA contract. Couple this with DALPA's usual suspects here constantly warning us about the NMB, and you have the recipe that is DALPA's philosophy. Aim low, then blame the NMB as to why we couldn't achieve what SWAPA already has.

Carl