Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

That argument pops up from time to time and I believe it is a red herring.

What if our reps and MEC bureaucrats believe this is the best they can do but at the same time recognize that it is unacceptable to the pilot group. What to do? Take a proposal to the negotiating table that you THINK won't be acceptable and that you THINK the big bad wolf (NMB) will blow your house down over? Or take a proposal to the negotiating table that is well below what is acceptable to your pilot group and then try to sell us on the idea that it was the best we could do and there is unacceptable risk in voting it down? Which sounds more like what we've experienced before?

This is just my opinion, but I think a lot of these guys (reps and bureaucrats) get so caught up in the minutia and in their own world of challenges that they lose sight of principle and the big picture. I don't think any (or at least most) of them want anything less than the most we can get. Sure it effects them! But I think many of them are so caught up in their world of proactive engagement that they don't want to do anything to possibly jeopardize that. It's not hard for management's professional negotiators to figure out who they're dealing with, what motivates them, and what scares them.

Getting a restorative contract and reeling in scope is NOT going to be easy. It will involve risk. None of us got to where we are by avoiding things that are difficult and by taking zero risk. Let's not get so caught up in the size of the challenge we face that we give up. Just my 2 cents...

Originally Posted by Scoop

I know you are joking but you are actually on to something. The only problem is that your rate decrease is far too large. Think what would happen to a turn with 7 hours of block and a 1 hour turn time. Even adding in a 1 hour pre-flight and a 1/2 hour post-flight you would have 9 1/2 hours of duty.

Scoop

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

After yesterday's hat discussion, I feel posting this is appropriate:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Pay us by the duty hour. I'll take a cut in the published hourly pay rates to get that.

Say you make $100/hr as a Co-pilot or $200/hr as a Captain. You get a typical 2 day NB trip with 18 hours of duty and 10.5 hours of flight time. You'd make the same amount of money if you were paid by the duty hour and took a near 50% cut in pay. So, I'll proudly sign off on pay by the duty hour and no more than a 15% cut in hourly rate.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude

Go to the lobby, stand with your back to the river and the bar on your left, walk to the end of the hallway on your right past the elevators and the gift shop. Crew room is the last room on the left at the end of the hall. Wifi instructions are on a poster on an easel in the crew room.

What's the Paris hotel charging you?

Originally Posted by newKnow

I just met Superpilot!! I feel like I met a rock star -- the inventor of underboob. I think I asked him for his autograph.

Hope he doesn't think I'm a stalker.....

Originally Posted by shiznit

I see what you are saying in a "theoretical" sense, but I have met reps in 3 of the LEC's and I seriously doubt any of the one's I've met would send an agreement out that doesn't have the maximum possible gains. (I have PLENTY of reasons I would vote no, evaluating the total package will determine that, I'm not a "one-issue" voter)

Every Rep and MEC bureaucrat will have their pay calculated based on the new contract, so what incentive does that provide for anyone to minimize their own pay? That doesn't appear logical to me.

Originally Posted by Jesse

Listen, you're much more knowledgeable about the process than I am, but explain to me why, if another organization representing us were able to get the company to agree to a greater percentage wage increase why the NMB would step in and say, "No, not possible." You're assuming your present bargaining agent is going to get the most the company is willing to agree to, which I don't consider a given. Explain to me why that is not a possibility.

That being said, I am one who thinks the alternative could possibly be better in the long run, but for now have resolved to stay with who I have. They have my full support; there is unity. But that doesn't mean if I'm taken for granted I won't look elsewhere. The argument that my consideration of other options is somehow showing a lack of support or reflects a lack of unity is insulting and annoys me to no end. They need to show me they deserve my business.