Originally Posted by
TheManager
First, I would contend it is not an official MEC newsletter. No where does it state that, on any of them. I could sit down today, write a bunch of what I believe are pertinent facts, publish them on line under the banner of 'True Headings' and hang them out as fact. An official MEC newsletter would be labeled as such and signed by a communications chairman and the author.
This is the header of the email. This doesn't constitute "an official MEC newsletter"? Really?
Originally Posted by
TheManager
Ok. Next.
The Railway Labor Act makes the government a factor in every pilot contract, whether the involvement of the National Mediation Board is actual, or merely implied. There could be nine Section 6 notices in play a year from now, and the outcome of one contract has consequences for all the others. The failure or success of one pilot group plays a factor in the potential of all the others.
The managing of expectations has begun. Those expectations are being managed down. Without stated goals present in any communication from the MEC, this above statement does just what it is designed to do. Downward expectation management.
I guess what you take from that paragraph is different from what I take from it. It looks like a statement of fact to me. Even though everyone should be up to speed on section 6 negotiations there are a lot of people who aren't.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
"With rationalized top and bottom wages in our industry, we are certainly better positioned to bargain for contract improvements than in the recent past."
Rationalized. What the phuque does that mean. Is that like Lee Moaks statement to Bloomberg/Business Week Magazine? "Our contracts are mature and need only adjustments on the margins."
Rationalized at the top says to me that DALPA is ok with the current benefit and compensation level at the top of our contract in relation to the industry. Worse, "rationalized wages at the bottom in our industry" implies ALPAs condoning the whip saw antics that see the lowering of wages at the regional level of our industry.
It appears you got a corrupted email because what you quoted is incomplete.
This will be a different ball game compared to 2012; industry-wide, there is a lot more action on the table with those ongoing negotiations (especially if the National Mediation Board plays a role in any of them), and pilot salaries across the industry aren’t scattered like buckshot as they were in 2012. With rationalized top and bottom wages in our industry, we are certainly better positioned to bargain for contract improvements than in the recent past.
The sentence you quoted is clearly referencing the prior sentence which talks about the fact that a lot of companies are negotiating at the same time and they have similar pilot salaries as opposed to 2012 when there were few companies in negotiations and pilot salaries varied wildly. What you wrote is pretty disingenuous.
Originally Posted by
TheManager
This is a giant fail. I expected more for the constituents prior to entering negotiations. Not this unsigned, meandering missive that has little value. Come on Dalpa. Step it up.
Not a way to start the eve of negotiations.
That's just like your opinion man.
P.S. Sorry for the ridiculously large graphic. I'm not sure how to resize it.