Scoop

No one hijacked anything. The vote was 13-7, not even close. For whatever reason, I haven't a clue, our Reps decided to go in a different direction. I find it very, very hard to believe the MEC could get behind anyone who supported TA-1. TA-1 was pretty lame but this is not the end of the world.

A few months back you said something like DAL was going all in or scorched earth on furloughs and I told you it was too early to pass judgement on furloughs. Same deal here - something is going on but I doubt it is 13 Reps planning a surrender party. I would say almost all of our Reps want the same thing - the best deal they can get for the DAL Pilots but they often disagree on how to get there. I personally thought Ryan was doing a great job but our reps obviously are privy to a lot that we don't see so lets all just calm down and give it some time.

One final though,t while I am concerned with a Yes TA-1 voter I also have issues with Reps who voted No on TA-2. Who knows where we would be now if TA-2 failed, Hell we could still be operating on C 2012.

Scoop

Gen6

I think it achieves its stated purpose of mitigating furloughs. If we have an amazing turn around in the next 18 months it probably wont matter. If we don't my feeling is we just bought an expensive insurance policy that will not be evenly distributed throughout the pilot group. My guess is a good portion of the 20 to 30% no vote will lie in the 99 to 08 hires. I fundamentally disagree with a business carrying more manpower than necessary for an extended period of time. Imo the quickest way back to achieving leverage, a contract, and getting everyone back sooner rather than later is for this company to turn big profits. I would rather pay $10K to a furlough relief fund and provide the exact same benefit to the 1721 than have 20-04.

Gspeed

Agreed. And it’s a tad ironic that RS was one of the TA2 no voters.


You forgot to mention the terrible comm pieces that looked like they were edited by a 5th grader. Spelling errors, repasted paragraphs, etc. It was definitely cringey.

TED74

Wow. And to think I'd probably pay 10k to have the provisions in 20-04 even if it didn't protect furloughs at all. Clearly we all have different priorities.

Drum

2558 got the furlough letters, including myself. If that wasn't going scorched earth then I don't know what is.

Our union did a good job staving that off and working thru the LOAs. I am sure the kompany was shocked at the VEOP take rate - probably still to this day. I still believe they want to be a smaller airline at the end of this - but that's just a theory.

I've only been around Malone, Bartels, Shnitzler and now Ambrosio (sorry if I misspelled his name). Your experience is obviously more since you've been here longer.

I am honest about my feelings and experience with 44. They are too much like management. I often asked them if they were. My skepticism will remain high though. Hopefully, like you and one other have said, the LECs are driving the fight and the MEC is just a mouthpiece.

LandGreen2

Nope, I disagree. I think the Comms (at least coming from the Comm Committee) have been second to none in my 20 years here.

Scoop

Honesty is good. You may be spot on with C-44 - but 9 other Reps voted too.

When you compare required by law furlough letters with actual furloughs you are displaying a lack of historical knowledge about what has happened in the recent past.

If that wasn't going scorched earth then I don't know what is.

Really? Let me give you a little help. How about 500 actual furloughs early to mid 90s. How about 1310 furloughs post 9-11? Some of which lasted 5+ years. 1310, by the way just from the DAL side - hundreds more on the NW side.

You make many good arguments on here, but if you keep doubling down on furlough letters being scorched earth you will lose credibility.

Scoop

Drum

They issued the letter by law; not to 200, not 500, not 1300, but 2558. Which telegraphed their intent to furlough that many. Poker? Probably. Still the fact is 2558 were sent. Had 1806 not taken the VEOP how many furloughs would have happened? We'll never know will we.

The play by the union was pretty solid from April onward. It got us turning room to get to VEOP and then the LOA's. Too bad April went down like it did with SILs, and MOAB timing, but the union executed in good faith on the re-bid.

I'm not sure how to take the credibility comment. I don't seek it from an anonymous forum. I'm just posting my thoughts and the way I view things.

beernutt

As Buck pointed out, the key words in my statement were ‘in an elected or appointed position’. If you ever had been then you would be more aware of the power structure in our Association because you would have seen it operate from an insider’s viewpoint. I assumed you had not, so I was letting you know kind of how it works. Nothing more. If you interpreted that as patronizing that’s on you for not reading and understanding the sentence.

The rest of your reply, including where you told me I was wrong, has been refuted by others in this conversation. Additionally, I never said the MEC chair had no influence. I said his position was largely titular. Not the same thing.

Since you came looking for it, here’s some patronization, some might call it helpful advice - you would do well to spend more time in the receive mode vs transmit.

FL370esq

I think the more interesting thing yet to be seen will be how the committees change under Chairman Ambrosi....if they even do. Who can forget the Scheduling/PBS walk-out a few years ago.