Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
DAL88;
I agree with many of your items. The pro con papers are a great idea but they need to be done correctly. The cannot be rants, but fact based. I have had an education on these by some of the former authors. It is important to know what works and what does not, but I do agree that they need to be done. They have to talk about the same items and issues and cannot just be papers written from the hip. That goes for both pro and con.
I do not mind reps telling me why they voted for it and why they think the TA of this or that is a good deal. I do agree that selling something over and above this should be toned down. Let your reasoning be your argument.
I agree with all of that.
Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
I have talked to a bunch of guys that voted yes on LOA 46 and 51 and well as LOA 19/JPWA and asked them what lead them to their votes. Not one of them mentioned fear mongering even after I asked if they though the "fear" card was played and whether or not it effected them. Most just understood on some level where they and the company were.
Yeah, I would be interested in exactly who you talked to about that. I was here. You weren't. I saw it firsthand, and it was obvious to me that the emphasis (over emphasis, IMO) on the potential downside of not voting in the agreement had a profound effect on the vote. Again, much of this "downside risk" was speculation but was presented as a foregone conclusion. Sound familiar?
Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
I will state that if the company keeps making tons of money, many of these guys are going to demand a lot of it back too. Fact is that most of the guys feel the company cannot afford restoration. No fear mongering is needed for them to come to that conclusion. The just read the 10K.
This is not my opinion but that of the guys and gals I fly with. Many do not see the company in a position to afford a 2-3 billion dollar per year bump in our compensation unless others follow suit.
When you look at the enormity of this corporation and this industry, there is a huge amount of money involved. As I have said before, there are many ways to allocate things. Our allocation was cut by about 50%. I believe that was too much under the circumstances at the time and it is
outrageous for the circumstances we have now. Let the bean counters worry about how to reallocate things... they should have been planning for this all along! We should be advocating that our overall compensation is put back to where it has typically been. Anything less than that is surrender, just like Carl has said.
Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Like I have said, if you want to change that, DPA is not going to do it. It needs to be done by education and a heck of a lot of work by each and every pilot that wants guys to understand what you demand ALPA does not get. Again, it is not ALPA that you need to change, it is the majority position of the pilots.
I really think that most pilots have given up on trying to change ALPA and that is a big part of the reason you see so much apathy. If DPA were to become our new bargaining agent, I think it would bring a lot of pilots out of their apathy and it would accomplish exactly what you suggest needs to be done. At this point, I don't see another alternative as ALPA is too entrenched in its way of doing things.
Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Get them to tell DAL to restore pay, retirement, work rules etc, and then get them to back it up. Until then it does not matter who is doing your negotiating. The votes will still fall the same way.
But I thought you said DAL cannot afford this.
