Originally Posted by
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.
Why do you think our 737's are a match with SWA's 737's? Ours carry more passengers, fly longer stage lengths, and fly a significant amount of international. SWA's carry fewer passengers than ours and fly only domestic... both long and short stage lengths. Other than the B-737 designation, it's an apples and oranges comparison. The MD-88/90 is the fleet we have at Delta that most closely corresponds to the number of seats and type of flying SWA does with their 737's. It seems perfectly reasonable that we would ask that fleet to be brought up to parity, and then apply the same percentage increase to all other fleets. Not only is that a more apples to apples comparison, it also allows us to ask for a larger pay restoration. I don't know why everyone keeps wanting to minimize our pay restoration.
Originally Posted by
Timbo
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.
So let me understand this, Timbo. According to you, we're screwed any way you slice it. So wouldn't you at least want someone representing you that is at least ADVOCATING restoration?? In other words, would you rather have someone with an objective that matches yours? Or would you rather have someone with an objective that is far below yours? Or does it not matter because you think we're screwed anyway and it's not worth the effort?
