Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Now now, Slowplay and Sailing and Alpha all bring interesting points of view to the thread. They speak more authoritatively as to what the MEC is really thinking than most of the rest of us.
As to those in management, or ALPA, watching this board I doubt they even consider the opinions expressed here. They have much better information and they have a business to run. They might be like those of us who simply are Delta fans, have been Delta fans since they were kids and come here to see the "latest and greatest."
I'm not sure any of us have nearly enough facts to draw conclusions on a JAL joint venture. Based on past performance (and the obvious) our union will sell out junior members if they believe it benefits the more senior majority. This aligns our MEC with management to the extent that they can partner on outsourcing deals. "Relevance" might be a pseudonym for being willing to deal away our own jobs.
we've already "sold" so much RJ flying that we've flooded the market and management doesn't even need all the sub 76 seat scope relief they've got. The next market has to be something else, or somewhere else.
With "lines in the sand" who knows where they are drawn? From a pure economic point of view, the outsourcing argument works all the way up to whatever position the MEC Chair and those in power occupy. Once we decide that we are OK with selling each other out, the decision on where the line is drawn gets very fuzzy. While I understand the economic arguments for bargaining scope, as a union I have to see this as a moral absolute which can not be compromised. We must stop selling one member's job to benefit another member.
This all having been said, I have NO indication what so ever that our MEC is, or would, deal away another pilot's job. The political rhetoric seems to be more conservative on scope lately. But the candidates really did not adopt unity, or any other method to recover flying. ACL65 had the best plan, but he did not get elected, possibly because he was transparent & honest about scope.
Bottom line, we don't know where this is going and we really should not be critical when we are ignorant of the facts.
Bar,
I do not think it is being ignorant of the facts. What people (me for one) are concerned about is that direction from the group does not see the light of day. We are told how wrong we are etc, etc. Instead of pointing fingers telling us we are wrong, Father Slow, should take the time to lay out facts without the spite.
The pilots of DAL want a win, and do not want to see more of their flying dolled out to other entities. That is a simple request. Is it not?
As for drawing conclusions, you are correct, but the words Slow uses, makes it sound like there is a clear path that is being taken.
I think all pilots agree that a greater footprint in the world is good, but more importantly is that we do not want to see that foot print cost us jobs. That is real simple.
If the MEC would communicate better with the rank and file, most would feel more informed, and probably would understand if not agree with most of the MEC's positions. It really all comes down to communication of our goals, objectives, and plan. Some of that needs to be disseminated to the group.