Delta Pilots Association
11-02-2013, 12:36 PM
#7811
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Interesting. You join last month and have 8 posts, and you say I'm predictable. Sounds like an old timer trying to come off as a new unbiased guy. Is that you Lumberg?
Then it should be easy for you to find it and post the exact words of the NMB chair. I'll wait.
Here's what you're missing: The brave new world started decades ago when ALPA decided on a strategy to not fight management attempts at outsourcing major jobs. Bloviate about foreign carriers all you want, but outsourcing has hurt us far more. And ALPA is still SILENT on the subject. ALPA will not even use the word outsourcing.
Have you read about how this "Special Committee" began and how they behaved? This kind of a thing is interesting when it's aimed against management during a labor dispute...but against your own fellow pilots? It's truly amazing in its political deafness and blindness.
We are trying to build something here dude. It's a new union for Delta pilots that is independent from ALPA national. It's very exciting.
Carl
So in the time it has taken you to post your 8000+ posts, maybe you should have instead noticed the comments made to the APA and UAL boys about "reasonableness" compared to their peers made by the NMB chair (and most importantly who gets to make that call). That would be a good start for your research.
Carl, its a brave new world out there. Time to identify the threat, develop tactics and execute. Who's the threat? Our own government, state owned airlines with their anti competitive model and the DPA, a bunch of angry people with no plan, no talent and no future. The three of them together make for a very dangerous cocktail, shaken or stirred.
Carl
11-02-2013, 03:25 PM
#7813
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I can respect your difference in opinion, and thanks for laying it out in a civilized manner.
Where I believe the biggest difference comes into play is what we both view as achievable. What would you consider a reasonable dent in your 73% desire? Half of that rounded up is 37%. As you point out, the longer it takes us to get that the bigger the number really has to be to overcome inflation and the opportunity cost of forgoing a smaller (IMO more reasonable) chunk and then trying again in a few years. I just don't see getting a 37% raise on day 1 or even year 5 when the majority of our competitors are still paid less than we are (let's save the SWA, FedEx, etc argument for another time.)
Where I believe the biggest difference comes into play is what we both view as achievable. What would you consider a reasonable dent in your 73% desire? Half of that rounded up is 37%. As you point out, the longer it takes us to get that the bigger the number really has to be to overcome inflation and the opportunity cost of forgoing a smaller (IMO more reasonable) chunk and then trying again in a few years. I just don't see getting a 37% raise on day 1 or even year 5 when the majority of our competitors are still paid less than we are (let's save the SWA, FedEx, etc argument for another time.)
There's just no way to get around the math. If you take an unreasonable cut, then it's going to take an unreasonable gain (or at least a series of what would normally be considered unreasonable gains) to achieve restoration. If you believe that we cannot be a little unreasonable (after we took unreasonable cuts), then by definition you do not believe restoration is possible. I don't know if I wrote that the most clear way... so hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say.
I doubt we could get 37% all in one year. But what about something like 20-15-10? We're currently a little more than 32% below full restoration buying power. If we were going to do it all at once, it would take about +50%. But 20-15-10 gets us to essentially the same place, spread over 3 years. I could agree to something like that. I'd probably vote YES for that (as long as we made some progress in reversing outsourcing and we didn't give up significant stuff in other areas). I think that's more than reasonable, especially considering that I'm not asking to be repaid for the ~$1 million I've lost from the pay cuts over the past 10 years.
I also don't see DPA getting that for me either. What I do expect is that they would try and fail, thus costing me 1-2 incremental contracts in the interim. You say we're only 16% of the way back from C2K? I'm not a numbers guy so I'll take that at face for the moment. How much further behind that curve would we be if we had taken the APA/USAPA approach? I just can't ignore the real world examples that have occurred, or are occurring around us. That is why I take purple's pessimism as what it is, pessimism. Are we where we want to be? No. Are we significantly better off than where we would be using DPA's proposed strategy? IMO yes.
Again, I respect your laser focus and desire to restore the profession. I just think any strategy we adopt toward that end MUST be rooted in reality, whether we particularly like that reality or not.
Again, I respect your laser focus and desire to restore the profession. I just think any strategy we adopt toward that end MUST be rooted in reality, whether we particularly like that reality or not.
11-02-2013, 04:25 PM
#7814
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Why would we stick with an agent who so abysmally evaluated the negotiating climate?
11-02-2013, 04:26 PM
#7815
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
11-02-2013, 05:41 PM
#7817
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
For that matter, how is ALPA going to do it?
ALPA has wasted plenty of chances as our agent to be more aggressive. Instead, they've decided (at our detriment) to "constructively engage" (i.e., roll over) for the company.
ALPA's passive strategy isn't working. Will the DPA's more aggressive strategy work? The downside is minimal (it can't get much worse than ALPA's rushed/oversold 4833 with productivity givebacks during a period of record profits). The upside is substantial. Let's not put up with ALPA's dithering any longer.
ALPA has wasted plenty of chances as our agent to be more aggressive. Instead, they've decided (at our detriment) to "constructively engage" (i.e., roll over) for the company.
ALPA's passive strategy isn't working. Will the DPA's more aggressive strategy work? The downside is minimal (it can't get much worse than ALPA's rushed/oversold 4833 with productivity givebacks during a period of record profits). The upside is substantial. Let's not put up with ALPA's dithering any longer.
11-02-2013, 05:43 PM
#7818
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
No no no no... if you want to convince me to sign a card, tell me what the plan is. How do I know they can get me any more money than dALPA can. How are they gonna handle the inevitable lawsuits that are gonna arise without an assessment? You try to flip the discussion, and the question is how is the dee pee aaa gonna be a better organization for me other than changey hopey?
11-02-2013, 05:49 PM
#7819
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
11-02-2013, 05:50 PM
#7820
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
So changey hopey then.... no thanks. It doesn't work on a national scale, and it won't work on a local one either. But at least you are honest about them not having any kind of plan... that we know of....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
