Originally Posted by
shiznit
Didn't the "proactive engagement" occur outside of Section 6 negotiations?
When we participated in such "proactive engagement", was mgt. under any obligation to "engage" the pilots?
IMO, moral obligation - yes. Legal obligation - no.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
How do you know that the tactics would be the same once we are in Section 6?
Hopefully they would not. But let me ask you this. Which "tactic" is more effect? 1) Setting a clear objective, making sure everything you do and say is oriented around that objective, and carrying that consistency into negotiations. or 2) Making your objective seem nebulous... maybe even like something completely different than what it actually is... and then suddenly, completely changing your objective when you actually get into negotiations?
I guess if you say expectations do not matter, then maybe you're okay with the latter. IMO, that is very poor strategic planning. I think most business experts would agree with me.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
Everything I've ever seen written or heard from DALPA elected representatives made it very clear that where our interested diverged (pilots v. management), that: "....when our fortunes are not aligned, we stand ready, willing and able to fight fiercely...." That doesn't sound very coddling and nicey-nice at all.
"When our fortunes are not aligned." What does that even mean?! Of course Delta's and its pilot's fortunes are intertwined! I can't think of a circumstance where that would ever change.
Here's my take on that. After taking massive cuts to the value of our careers in what was sold to us as an extreme emergency, we are still living with the massively reduced value years after the "extreme emergency" has been over. And DAL management hasn't lifted a finger to rectify the situation. It doesn't get a whole lot more "out of alignment" than that! If there was ever a time to "stand ready, willing and able to fight fiercely", this is it! (and has been for several years)