Originally Posted by
FIIGMO
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?
I wasn't in the room, but my proof is as follows:
1. It looked just like previous openers...with the details redacted. Our union's opener template starts with the section name, then an opening declarative statement of fact as we see it, then a general goal of what we want to achieve in that section, then the detailed bullet points of what is our actual opening position. We've been shown all of this except the detailed bullets.
2. In many previous DALPA mailings, it was stated that our MEC spent the last year studying industry data, other contracts, Delta's finances with the EF&A team and pilot surveys to create a
comprehensive opening position in time for the start of Section 6. They didn't spend all that time and energy to produce a concept.
3. They redacted all the details except the sprinkler system in hotels. Why would a "conceptual" opener include that extreme level of detail when scope and pay were so general? IMO, the evidence points to the fact that we exchanged openers with management the way we always have. Pilots just got the version with the details redacted...except sprinklers.
Carl