Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Couldn't have said it better. Two additional points:
1. This was NOT the opener given to management folks. This was the highly sanitized "conceptual" version. The example of us demanding sprinklers in our hotel rooms is the level of specifics that management got in all sections. If management only got a "conceptual" opener, that part should have read: "improve hotel rooms."
2. Understand that this Section 1 position is now the High Water Mark. Negotiating in good faith will almost certainly require us to come off this crazy high water mark opening position of ours. Regarding Section1, it's very clear that it was written for us by ALPA national and the regional MEC's. They are unharmed and protected with language regarding preferential hiring.
Carl
Carl,
I am disappointed too with what I am reading, but I fail to see as you say, any proof that this a watered down version or that ALPA was worried that telling us the truth was not appropriate. Do you know for a fact or just guessing. I am curious and I am angry as well, but does this mean we are being blatantly lied too?
Also, my issue is with any mention of any DCI carrier or crew member getting any consideration at DAL at all whether scope, hiring, pass benefits anything. JV and code share needs to be addressed in much stronger language. Alaska code share has decimated QOL of every pilot at DAL especially west coast crews. Absolute hard limit language on scope and no more scope concession period. Not the strength of the language I want but then again I was not at the table with my peers going through how to concoct an opener. SO I will have to wait and see. DPA is not even in the equation at all. They are not here now, maybe we will see but any comparison to what DPA would do is pure fantasy and frankly irritating.