Originally Posted by
Kingbird87
This ^^^^ attitude is the biggest difference I see as a DALPA subject rather than an NWA ALPA member. "Whistling past the graveyard" is going to do nothing to alter reality. NWA ALPA always went into negotiations fully expecting to have to bet our jobs in the high stakes business of labor negotiations. And they did. Multiple times. Post 911, the company successfully linked pension legislation in Washington with the BK contract and divided and conquered.
DALPA, on the other hand, clings to the perception that we are "All in this together" with management, and "Our Special Relationship" will bring us an equitable response. If we can only let someone else go before us, then we can get Unical, or SWA plus __%. While this pattern bargaining was successful in the past, in case you haven't noticed, the current guys on the "other side of the table" are the same ones that we had to go eyeball to eyeball with at NWA. Until we elect representation that sees opportunity as opposed to danger, all we are doing is waiting for our masters to serve the scraps. It doesn't matter here if you are a widebody CA, LCA, "throne king" on Virginia Avenue or a Mad Dog FO in NYC, every one of us is still in bankruptcy, and the only solace anyone is taking is that they are at least doing better than someone else. We are and have been "flatlined", and hoping that someone else's "turn in the box" changes that, is "whistling past the graveyard".
I have to take offence at the suggestion that we're not willing to bet our job. We've done it every time, and I'm sure we're willing to do it again. Our strike votes and your strike votes have not differed in any meaningful way. What you're confusing the nature of a union, and a temporary strategy used by a particular administration or adminstrations.
Another thing I get from your post is that you're incorrectly describing the nature of this so-called "special relationship". For starters, it's only "special" in the sense that we talk. The "relationship" is a means, not an end. It's not a guarantee of results, not even a guarantee to always be available to negotiate. It's only a loose policy of generally being willing to explore mutually beneficial arrangements. It's a policy of negotiating more, and more often. In that sense, we're not alone. If you look at SWA, they're very often willing to engage their management, and have often supported each other. But when they couldn't agree, i.e. their previous merger attempt, they stood fast, and apart. When it came time to trounce the AirTran pilots, they worked together.
I can't speak for the other "South" pilots, but I don't
cling on to
anything WRT constructive engagement: I look at it dispassionately. It's actually worked, for a brief time, and for a specific set of events. The true test of the relationship will be the next T/A. If it fails that test, that will show us the end of this strategy, and we'll need to vote accordingly. And I for one fully expect it will not work forever. For now, it deserves a shot. If opportunities come along that allow us to capture gains, I want us to be at the table. You wrote:
"...While this pattern bargaining was successful in the past, in case you haven't noticed, the current guys on the "other side of the table" are the same ones that we had to go eyeball to eyeball with at NWA. Until we elect representation that sees opportunity as opposed to danger, all we are doing is waiting for our masters to serve the scraps..."
I couldn't agree more. Whatever you did at NW, and whatever we did at Delta, under the traditional model of pattern bargaining isn't working now. I sure as hell don't want to negotiate "United Plus" this time around. So opportunities come along, and groups that know how to be at the table gain. That's how we did it for the merger, isn't it?
I think the only difference between what you might have seen, and what ALPA has been doing recently at Delta is that we've been willing to
talk to them. Period. If you think "South" pilots think it's cute, special, or touching, to have a "relationship" with management, you're wrong.