Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.
They're not weighing the cost/benefit of "accepting" a new scope restriction, they're celebrating at the fact they got us to
remove a major one for
nothing in return.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.
And thus far, DALPA has been instrumental in ensuring we reconcile this by giving up more and more scope protection. Many of us are saying it's time to change that. But it looks like DALPA is continuing the path of scope surrender.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.
Again, we don't want a deal...management does. The company is not in a corner. They simply see yet another way to "give" us something completely meaningless for removal of our job protections. And sadly, our own union agrees with that.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.
Pretty pathetic really. Reps state their opinions based on the facts as they see them, and you smear them if those opinions don't comport with management's desires. I don't know when you are going to understand this alfa, but that's the main reason you're not in office anymore. You can't treat your own people this way and expect to survive.
Carl