Originally Posted by
Purple Drank
Got it. We'll put you down as favoring longer training freezes (a significant concession) to fund our improvements.
There are other ways to monetize training. What if you were given an hourly override for not going to training when you were eligible to bid to another airplane? That would be pretty good wouldn't it?
Originally Posted by
Purple Drank
Here's another question for you: Why should we fund our own improvements when the company is making billions?
We shouldn't. I didn't say we should. You made that up.
Originally Posted by
Purple Drank
Alan Shore (a DALPA operative) also attempted to paint longer training freezes as a positive using that same (ridiculous) straw man argument.
I'm not advocating anything. I mentioned moving training costs to our pockets as an example of an inefficiency in the contract. You made the leap that I was advocating longer training freezes.
Originally Posted by
Purple Drank
Again: why are we debating concessions? Why is DALPA entertaining the notion of concessions?
We are not debating concessions;
you are accusing me of debating concessions.
Originally Posted by
Purple Drank
I think this bears repeating, as it unmasks Oberon as a proponent of self-funded improvements (see also: "cost neutral")
That's a pretty big leap. I'm advocating doing the research necessary to be prepared for the process. Nothing more, nothing less.