Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
The problem I see is that your "mind" appears to be part of the collective now. At least that is what you are speaking here these days. ALPA talking point after ALPA talking point. Not at all the way you sounded just a little over a year ago. Sorry, but other than some lip service here and there, I have seen very little change in ALPA. Your thoughts, however, are another story. A lot of change there.
Wanting ALPA to succeed does not mean that I do not want motivated pilots to affect change within the organization. Those two are very different. I am a big believer in transparency of process. Fact is that you and I have not talked in quite some time, so you do not know where I stand on many issues. Of the issues I have discussed here, my points revolve around the fact that we need to follow a process. If we want restoration etc, we need to first unify under the organization that will produce the best chance of that result, and allow their full turn at the plate prior to our turn at the plate.
Sorry, but I've got to come back to good old, basic, common sense and time tested successful practices. You don't reach your goal in any business or organization without first identifying it and clearly communicating it so that everyone is on the same page. ALPA has failed miserably in this extremely important first step.
And how would you feel if DALPA went and stated that we want retirements or bust, but you want pay and not a DC? Fact is that until you can put out a "goal" you must know what the board wants. In our case the board is the line pilots and the medium is the contract survey. After that is completed you will see the goals come out. It is not something new, and it follows a proven process of section six talks.
No. Anything we could get "mid term" just raises the bar and makes a lower percentage needed to achieve in Section 6. Plus, it does one other very important thing (well, actually a couple of things). 1) It let's all concerned parties (including even those in our own pilot group) know that we do not consider our current level of compensation some kind of new baseline. 2) It gives us a chance to evaluate the "relationship" that ALPA worked so hard to build with management during the Lee Moak era. With bankruptcy and the threat of liquidation long behind us, our current bankruptcy/emergency compensation is clearly inappropriate. Correcting this is simply the right thing to do on the part of management. Let's press to test on this and see if this "relationship" is legitimate or not. If they agree, then we all have more much needed money for our families and a better base from which to start Section 6. If they refuse, then we have a better idea of what we are dealing with and how to proceed going forward.
I do not know one pilot, management type or other person that knows this industry that thinks we are happy with what me make. Never mind a farewell letter from a former leader.
As I have stated, a mid term may be done, but the pilots need to be polled first. It will undoubtedly cool the collective temperature of the pilot group down. Depending on where the other cards may be, that may or may not be a good thing.
It is business to them if they are willing to part with a raise with no extension to the contract great. I just see any "mid-term" raise coming with restrictions and or conditions.
This is just my opinion, but I think that is a real stretch. As I said above, I see no downside to asking for a mid contract partial pay restoration. In fact, I only see upside with this, one way or the other. And if we get something like SWA pay mid contract, and UCAL and APA leap frog us before our Section 6... well again I only see upside to that. This isn't a race! I don't care which pilot group is the highest paid at any particular point in time. I only care that we are compensated appropriately. If us getting a mid contract increase helps UCAL and APA to get better contracts, well then we will have helped ourselves with this whole pattern bargaining thing you seem to think is the only way to go. Your argument on this just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
See my above. A mid term without a quid pro quo would be a great thing, but the reality is that there would be conditions to it.
That's about as intentional a misrepresentation as I've seen from you. Show me where I've "ranted" about "restoration or bust." (Hint: you aren't going to find it.) I've talked a lot about setting objectives and making sure that all of our actions are oriented around those objectives. I've pointed out how ALPA is failing miserably in this area. I've stated that I believe we've settled for agreements in the past that we should not have accepted. But that doesn't translate into "restoration or bust." Give me a break. Even you know better than that.
I am too lazy to look back six months on this and the L&G tread. My recollection is that you were irked that we would not ask nor demand such a thing starting now. I will give you that when faced with some criticism, you even stated you do not expect the touted 73% raise, but you still want it out there today.