Any idea why?

 

The "Stick with what you know" theory comes to mind.

 

It seemed to be fine for the last few years, now why do they want to get rid of it? Oh, and the story I read said we were looking for a 'partner.'

 

That's how Bombardier sold the "send the C Series to airbus" idea at first also.

 

Do you think “his boys” aren’t trying to do exactly that? IMO it takes two to tango. When one party doesn’t want to come out on the dance floor there is no way to force them..................until there is (NMB Mar/Apr 2020).

Denny

 

After a little more thought on this: As I understand it, we originally had a contract with Philipps 66 for the non-Jet fuel portion of the refinery's production. We traded the gasoline/diesel/asphalt to them for jet fuel at other locations. So in essence, we were getting 100% jet A out of the crude that was refined there. Since contracts have ends (with the exception of RLA contracts) perhaps this is what they mean by 'partner'.

just a thought.

 

Absolutely it takes two and you are right, there is no way to force them and the NMB really can’t force them either, but can provide some pressure.

Interestingly, some on the MEC and at least one candidate in 44 has questioned whether we even should go to mediation. I would expect that to be a discussion going forward.

I only speak of “his boys” because of how critical “his boys” were of all things ALPA in the past. Now they are the dance partner and their partner doesn’t want to dance, so now it isn’t the MEC’s fault although they were the first to blame the MEC in the past.

It seems like the new mantra is “at least they haven’t caved” but if you go back and look at the LOAs as someone posted on FB, they weren’t concessionary or selling anything as they are portrayed. So there was progress for the Delta pilots by having a business like approach instead of a reactionary one. (At least to this point)

I know some are willing to wait “as long as it takes” for the perfect contract, but there is no retro when it comes to work rules and scope. That does not mean moving to the company table position or even close on the JVs, but sitting back doing nothing while AM grows within the confines of 1E2 (or whatever the section is) doesn’t seem to be working.

 

And Denny,

I am not trying to be argumentative with you, I just feel like there is a balance between PE and where we are now that would yield better (any) results.

There is a segment of this MEC who gains a greater thrill out of fighting, I believe than they do winning. I am confident for example, that if the MC and the CEO had an open line of communication (trust) some of our outstanding issues would be resolved by now.

Look at the DH issue. The C81 Captain Rep goes on FB pandering to his audience about how the CEO had told the MEC he would resolve it. Someone asked the question if the MC had called Ed to remind him of that statement. He dodged the question with a non answer and then when asked again, he disappeared as he normally does....

Why?

He either wants to keep the narrative going that the company won’t work with us, or he doesn’t want to admit that the MC (at least up until recently) had not been speaking to the CEO.

The rhetoric, Executive Inactive, and all the other things are fine if they actually produce something. To date I haven’t seen a whole lot that is encouraging.

 

Executive inactive gives a pay raise to management pilots and a pay cut to ALPA. Brilliant!

 

If you mean they pay less dues because they are not active members, then no. If you mean that they got a reward and pay increase from Delta, then yes. Name any other union that has a senior level vice-president and division directors as members.