Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1200529)

Who is Carl?:D

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1199949)

Not sure that is true, but I think you are being TIC.

I recall the HAL pilots doing it and their agreement was bettered.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1199949)

If we do turn this down, I would not be surprised to see the second one be worse. The MEC would then be dutifully bound to turn it down. TA 3 is probably what would we would accept, that is if what we have now is not acceptable to the rank and file.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude (Post 1200538)

Slow, when is Delta or DALPA doing to tell us definitively that we are not taking any air tran guys with the 717s? That rumor needs to be officially squashed before the vote.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1200529)

Who is Carl?:D

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1199998)

Good one you. Like I said, I recall, not that I Know.

Many years ago ASA turned down an TA and it was fixed in weeks. Different era I know.

As I have said, voting no and turning it down is an unknown that comes with unquantifiable risks, but if this thing does not meet ones mins, they need to decide if the risk is worth the reward.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1200542)

Exactly like the movie! :eek:

Mr. Mc Coy, I presume. :D

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1200517)

Delta has those options because they don't even consider the possibility that their friends in DALPA will let them down and oppose them on anything. Negotiations occur with everyone on the same side of the table.

In a real union/management relationship, one of the options Delta would have to factor in is a really bad reaction by the union leadership, and the pilot membership. Thus putting their plan of labor peace into question when they go looking for asset financing.

So to answer your question, given the fact that we are represented by DALPA, there's no reason for them to spend more money because they're convinced they know what all their options are.

Carl

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer (Post 1200204)

I have done that. Since DALPA is championing how great this is and ignoring the stagnation that I just pointed out in the post you didn't like. Lets look at a just few things Alaska airlines has in their contract that are ahead of what this new proposal even promises.

Minimum daily guarantee = 5 hours

You bid for Short Call or Long Call and...

Short Call (2 hour notification) gets paid 79 hours

Long Call (11 hour notification) gets paid 75 hours

Long Call can be converted to Short Call 4 times per month. The first time the pilot is paid an additional 2 hours. The next 3 times the pilot is paid an additional hour for each conversion. Permission must be granted by the pilot for any conversions greater than 4.

Pilot must be provided first class on deadhead any time first class seats are available on any flight.

Pilot must be provided first class on a deadhead on ANY flight over five hours. This also includes consecutive deadhead legs adding up to 5 hours (all those flights need to be first class).

Off Days of Reserve. A reserve pilot will receive at least two 2 day periods in a row, one row of 3 days, and one group of five days in a row off during the calendar month of reserve.

Any food available for purchase by passengers in the main cabin must be offered to deadheading pilots free of charge.

If onboard internet is available on any airplane it must be made available to deadheading pilots free of charge.

Crew meals are provided to the pilots (no flight time restrictions). These meals are chosen during quarterly meetings between the MEC and the company. (Pilots basically have a crew meal on every flight long or short).

Maximum hours for reserves is below what this contract proposes.

and so on and so forth....

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1200210)

This is a fight of attrition.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1200228)

I disagree. This isn't a fight that can be won on the forum by driving "the other guys" off, or outposting one another. I think people look for facts that register. This isn't one you can be super proud to vote for, or against. Independently-minded people, people that probably don't even post, are going to make the difference. I don't think they'll respond to spamming, or shaming.

Neither the ALPA sales job, the DPA counter-sales job, or the rest of the committed nos and yesses will succeed, IMO. What works best with me are sane arguments, for example Cobretti's thread for the YES side, and Sailing's logic for the NO's. Sailing is being very analytical in this, and voting NO on the money, and not hyperventilating on Scope. I can see where he's coming from. I consider the Scope improvement box to be checked with this TA, but I wonder:

1) If we're getting enough for our help and previous contributions,
2) If there really is a logical path to getting a better deal if we turn it down, and
3) How I feel about the economy, short-term, and medium-term.

These are the things that keep me in the discussion. So far, I think the answer to 1 is "no", and the answer to the other two is probably to vote for this.