Originally Posted by GunshipGuy

BB, thanks for your reply. Allow me to address some of your points.

I think I understand the process for making contract gains from the explanations DALPA described in their updates leading to our last round of PWA negotiations. What leads you to come to the conclusion that I have no understanding of "the process?" Are you referring to the "the process" of making small gains to get to the finish line? If so, then that's one philosophy, but I don't believe it to be the one and only philosophy. With that being said, I do believe that's a sound philosophy to make gains. However, I don't think they have to be such small gains. The strategy is sound, just like dollar cost averaging, but both work extremely better if you don't use the smaller figures year over year.

Or did you mean by your statement that I don't understand the process in the macro sense? Well, again, wouldn't you be referring to a philosophy rather than an actual process? And if that was your point then you're making my point for me: a one-dimensional view on how to accomplish your objectives (however undefined they are) is myopic and prevents the opportunity for other operational tactics to be considered for effective use. And to your point that I "have not volunteered" in order to learn "the process" I ask, why? Why can't my union communicate its philosophy without having to use such an argument (cop out)?
By all accounts Delta is doing EXTREMELY WELL. I don't think we can say the same thing about our last TA. Some think it was better than others, but I haven't heard anyone talk about how incredible it was. So, yes, the company does well; we do OK is more accurate. One can point out how they're less than satisfied with certain issues without it being characterized as "attacking' can't they? If taking issue on certain areas of (what should be) disagreement is an attack on an organization and harms us over the long run, well then what would you call the latest recall of our MEC chairman? Did that result in harming us over the long run? There was a lack of harmony to say the least; and dissatisfaction was voiced, and furthermore action was taken. I would say canning a chairman is more of an "attack" than what I suggested. And my previous post's suggestion was simply of the opinion that it wouldn't hurt if our union occasionally showed its membership it isn't a loving puppy dog of its management master to be counted on to always comply and actually let out a little bark. But to the DALPA-can-do-no-wrong crowd that can only mean one thing--a beating of a lifetime. Some see it resulting in a few more table scraps.
If you read my last post carefully you'll see I made no suggestion contrary to this other than the "peaceful partner" bit. ALPA execs and DALPA higher ups may be partners; the line pilot is the hired help. As for what I wrote, I'll save you the time for going to look for it: "The last thing I'm suggesting is that DALPA seek a contentious relationship; I don't pretend to think that would be good for any of us. But the BFF relationship? I guess that's good if you like the status quo."



You're building strawmen here and knocking them down quite impressively. Did I say a thing about wanting to work anywhere else? Or did you infer that for one to desire improved working arrangements means they must think it's better elsewhere? And not that I'm an authority on the issue, but an ardent supporter of DALPA I flew with not long ago pointed out how our pay would match another airline in the passenger business if it were to go out past our current PWA another two years. A claim I'm dubious of.


Not recovered from the merger? What was all that talk about partnerships? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win? But seriously, I'll give credit to ALPA for a doing a good job in those areas, but two points: They "got" you those results because you PAID them to. That's like saying you "got" money from the government after you filed your tax return. Secondly, How do you know the results couldn't have been better without some combativeness?


Yes, they'll work to make things better. They're working hard, and it never stops. I got it. But if you don't set goals then it's pretty easy to not be held to account, isn't it? How about a smidgen of work toward communicating what concerns the majority of the pilots: that DALPA intends to get our pay to where we deserve it to be. Yes, DESERVES to be. The sacrifices made by those who were here before me in terms of paycuts, retirement accounts, and work rules to save the company from never coming back from bankruptcy. So set some goals and let the membership know what those goals are. Dare to be held accountable to those goals. Richard Anderson sets goals. If you don't set goals how does the team know what it's striving for? How does it measure itself? If you don't want to be held accountable you use fuzzy words like "working towards" and "never stop."
Yes, he is very smart. I hear that a lot. I think he's so smart he's figured out how to make DALPA feel they're a partner. And partners have each others' backs, do they not? "We're in this together!" "We're winning!" "Doing great work!" "Isn't this fulfilling?!!!!"

Answer: No speeches, no rah rah Let's destroy DPA! Just clear objectives of what our union intends to do for it's pilot group in terms of pay. If you ruffle some feathers, well, oh my gosh, someone might be a little offended. Guess what--it doesn't mean a labor war has been declared.


The good ol' standby of "if you're not happy with it you should volunteer." So if I voice disgruntlement then the answer is "Your dues aren't enough: you need to give us more of your time." This is akin to a diamond medallion customer voicing displeasure of always getting in late to CLT. "You're tired of the always getting in late to CLT because we have crappy gates and not enough gate crews to get us in on time? Pick up some wands if you want to make a difference."

Very Respectfully,
GG