Carl, sorry for the delay in responses. Some of us are actually working to make things better for pilots instead of just complaining on the internet, though.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Do you not even remember what you just posted? Since you apparently do not, let's review shall we:
I responded to this post as follows:
One minute you say a 52% increase, and the next minute you ask about citing examples showing a pilot group demanding double the cost of their pilot payroll year over year.
I'm betting you weren't a math major.
The problem isn't my math skills, Carl, the problem is your reading comprehension skills. Or more accurately, the lack thereof. You'll notice that the 52% number references a "pay increase," while the use of the term "double" was used to apply to total pilot payroll. The APA's proposal included a 52% increase to rates of pay, but also included improvements to many other areas, such as benefits and scheduling rules. In total, the changes would more than double total pilot payroll costs for the company.
I'll wait patiently for your example of the NMB allowing a strike for either a 52% increase or a 100% increase to pilot payroll costs, though. Since I know neither example exists in reality, I won't hold my breath.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Cite the source document or any other evidence you have to back up this opinion yours.
Section 2, First of the Railway Labor Act, clarified by the decisions in Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 538 F.2d 46, 51-52 (2d Cir.1976) (appellate court affirming district court's application of mandatory-permissive distinction in case arising under RLA and rejecting union argument that labor and management should meet and negotiate with respect to any proposal advanced by either party); and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 302 F.2d 540, 543-44 (7th Cir.) (discussion of whether pension agreements constitute subjects of mandatory collective bargaining under the RLA).
Both of the above cases ported the NLRA concept of mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining to the RLA, and further clarified that the only mandatory subjects of bargaining under the RLA are those specifically delineated in Section 2, First of the Act, which only lists pay rates, work rules, and working conditions. Job security is not included, and is considered by the courts, and therefore the NMB, as a permissive subject of bargaining.
If you have any further questions, you can always call the DALPA office and speak to one of the contract administrators. I'm sure one of them would be more than happy to educate you.
Originally Posted by
JoeMerchant
That's funny...PCL128 and I have been fighting for a decade on the message boards...We don't agree on many things. He paid to work for Gulfstream, then went to Pinnacle, then Air Tran...now Southwest.
That being said, he is right on this issue. I welcome the changing ideas on this issue...
My views haven't really changed on these issues. The areas where you and I disagreed were always on tactics. The RJDC and frivolous litigation were not the ways to go about effecting change. As I've always told you, real change must come from within. Not from a court room or a message board on the internet.