Originally Posted by
CVG767A
I think that is a big part of the problem here. There are two ways to reach an agreement between two groups having divergent goals: the traditional, adversarial way, where the stronger entity wins, and the cooperative way, where both sides seek an agreement that addresses their respective needs.
NWALPA typically resorts to the former method; DALPA typically uses the latter.
Which is more effective? I'll leave that for you to decide. One way to judge the effectiveness of each method is to compare our contracts over the years. You be the judge.
CVG,
I'm not so sure I'm ready to take a lecture about being adversarial from a pilot group that didn't even have reciprocal jumpseats until the mid to late 90's.
Is it possible that DAL has the great contract that you have because of the many strikes NWA and others went on in the past?
Let's not forget that Delta pilots attitude of "cooperation" back in the 90's was not highly viewed by ANY of the other airline pilot groups. Why?
1. You negotiated a 2% pay cut right before DAL made record proffits.
2. You had no jumpseat privilges for the rest of the industry.
Maye you were a little too cooperative then, ya think?
A few years ago you guys went crazy preparing for a strike for the concessionary contract and for the potential U.S. Air merger, and I was proud of you. Both times you were very effective. But, that wasn't too cooperative, was it?
So, if you want me to be the judge, I would say that your cooperative approach did not work too well in the 90's. I hope it works out for you now. But I would ask that you not judge others who choose not to be cooperative. Different situations require different methods.
Respectfully,
New K Now