Originally Posted by brakechatter (Post 1272856)

From Brakechatter:



While Padre says that the two are mutually exclusive, then denies they are, then says again that they are; maximizing leverage and seizing all available opportunities while tidying up the house and taking care of our pilots safety and security concerns within our committee structure can indeed happen simultaneously. As a former committee member myself, I have been told point blank from Administration leadership that safety and security "are some else's problem". As a line pilot in the pointy end of the airplane, I vehemently disagree with that assertion, and in fact, it is the very foundation on which ALPA was built. To disregard it as "navel lint" is completely unacceptable.

Same holds true with the policy manual. Apparently, it too is regarded as "navel lint" by the powers that be. Rules of engagement exist for a reason. They are there to protect us from, well, exactly what is happening: a small power base deciding unilaterally what is good for the Delta pilots rather than the Delta pilots making that determination. As a Delta captain for some 12+ years, I can unequivocally tell you that should I choose to disregard the rules of the road, also known as the FOM, I will find myself out of a job in quick order. My job is to find the path of success within the bounds of the FOM.

We have things like policy manuals, Constitutions, FOMs, laws, etc in order to define what is right and what is wrong. Deviation is allowed in an emergency. Creating emergencies to allow deviations is unacceptable. While some may call that a political motive, I would argue that it is they who are bringing up politics with "navel lint" comments regarding the rules of engagement.

So, onto pay, work rules and benefits. Allow me another quote from 1 of my "5 letters":

Contract 2012: I did not support the 2012 tentative agreement. While the agreement provided a slightly bigger paycheck, it fell woefully short of the direction given by our pilots, and subsequently, the MEC governing body. Specifically, it did not meet important monetary triggers, scope protections, retirement parameters, and exchanged too many items to the company without fair gain in return. While additional cash is always welcome, we could have done better. Now that C2012 is in place, we must move forward and seek every opportunity for contract improvements and advancements.

This pretty much sums it up. To say that I am not interested in pay, benefits, and work rules is just absolutely incorrect. It is the reason I did not support the TA. Simply put, I feel as if the pilots of a 2 plus billion projected profit company should have done better. Some will talk about productivity while comparing a 9 fleet airline to a 1 fleet airline. We will never be as productive as other airlines who have many less fleet types. Those who measure our success by denigrating other airlines strike me as the same people who need to say, "I'm the captain, that's why". Here is the thing, and I underlined it in my last sentence--it's done. We now move on to the next opportunity, and hopefully glean a bit of wisdom in the ability to step back, decide what went right and what went wrong, and do better next time.

To label this as "navel lint" is a huge disservice to the Delta pilots, and to the history of ALPA, whose roots are etched in safety. If we are so focused on only contractual improvements that we snub our nose at safety, security, and a host of other issues, why even bother with safety and security? Why not just save the money in expenditures and have a handful of MEC Administrators, elected and appointed run the whole show? Why even have LEC representatives if their direction is disregarded? We could certainly save money there as well.

The bottom line, contrary to what you are being told here by the upper powers in the MEC Administration and current representatives, is that ALL candidates have an acute interest in maximizing contractual benefits, and perhaps we disagree as to how to do it. Only a few candidates have talked about some of the other issues, which are causing damage to the foundation of our unity. Words such as "pander" and "naval lint" are divisive in their nature, and I have no interest in the mud slinging. I am not surprised that appointed and elected representatives have shown up to defend their hospitality suites, flight pay loss, ALPA career progression, etc.

Maximum extraction of leverage, communication concerns, committee concerns, and other problems within ALPA can ALL be addressed in a much more satisfactory manner--WHILE following the policy manual.

To use other union failures with BK companies as a measure of our success with a company approaching the 2 billion dollar profit mark is what we might call a red herring.

To say that pay, benefits, and work rules take a back seat with me is simply not true.

I'll make it clear, I wish to see us maximizing leverage in the upward trend of our pay/benefit package, WHILE utilizing our committee structure in a much more beneficial way, WHILE communicating in a more useful and respectful manner with our pilots, WHILE restoring the direction of our union to the line pilot via his or her representation and not by a few elected and appointed officials.

Council 44 voters will decide correct course, and not an anonymous web board.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions about my "agenda".

Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 1272978)

Ahhh, teamwork....I suspect your version of that is "you guys really need to go along with what we tell you". And this belies your complete misunderstanding of the situation you find yourself in. Here's a clue...this isn't your classroom in B school where parroting then professor's text on "Effective Leadership" gets you brownie points.

Nu

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1273024)

http://blog.ivman.com/wp-content/Unity.jpg

Originally Posted by sinca3 (Post 1272983)

10 pages and no response! I see a trend with Slow....

Originally Posted by MrBojangles (Post 1273037)

someone over on another forum said that the 717's are delayed because of the AD and that's why the -9's are staying around longer. I noticed that the weekly update didn't mention we would be putting more people on the -9, but the crew resources update did. Kinda unusual.

Originally Posted by MrBojangles (Post 1273037)

someone over on another forum said that the 717's are delayed because of the AD and that's why the -9's are staying around longer. I noticed that the weekly update didn't mention we would be putting more people on the -9, but the crew resources update did. Kinda unusual.

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1272889)

Dragon, Good post, well thought out. I don't agree with everything you posted but a good presentation. Remember your fellow Delta pilot is every bit as capable of independent thinking and contract analysis as you are and a majority of them voted for it, to imply otherwise is hypocritical. On the 777 everyday there were 2 or 3 reserves required and anywhere from 12 to 20 available. We had/have many reserves who flew zero to 1 trip a year ! We were way over manned and it had nothing to do with trip swapping which is now gone ( never did it but I know why it was done, pm me if you want details).

Originally Posted by SailorJerry (Post 1272960)

So either they're lying to me about their vote (doubt it) or they're honestly okay to satisfied with it. Once again, you're putting words in the mouths' of other people. What's so wrong with someone doing their due diligence and then being satisfied with the results?

And did you miss the memo about the DC-9 bring the most profitable fleet?

And what's so wrong with the company making money? It's like you want to financially punish them for being fiscally conservative. Would you punish your kid for putting his allowance in savings?