I agree and while I wasn't quick enough to think of "douche bag Olympics" I did tell Lawson under gate C23 in Atlanta that his logic was flawed, he should be building bridges and his idea of trying to leverage furloughed pilots was "terrible."

The other side of the coin was that Lawson's concerns were dead accurate as proven by the disappearance of his airline. He had tried to get scope which bound Delta, but Woerth would not allow it. I think Prater later did allow a commitment from Delta to Comair and subsequently Moak authorized Pinnacle / Endeavor.

 

Carl, Purple, Cap'n, et al...

You can't have it both ways, either the company is telling the truth or it's not. Re:

Company: "If you don't sign this TA, we don't get 717's"
Vocal opposition: "BS, we are getting them anyway."

Company: "We will have to spend money on mx for old RJ's if we can't renegotiate their leases. "
Vocal opposition: "BS, they're gonna park em anyway."

Company: "This is all the money that's on the table for Contract 2012.
Vocal opposition: "BS, we have leverage, we're just afraid to use it."

Company: "This TA is cost neutral."
Vocal opposition: "This TA is cost neutral."

Which way is it fellas? RA and the board are obviously doing their best to raise the stock price, ie dividends, etc . Does anyone REALLY believe that no matter WHAT contract 2012 cost, that management wouldn't spin it any other way but positive?

 

OK, fair enough. I think a great way to alleviate his concerns (and more importantly, represent his people) would have been follow your advice, and work with us, rather than against.

I'll assume you're correct about your facts, in which case it would show an instance of Prater and Moak getting something wrong, and Woerth getting it right. I know of no instance of Prater getting anything right, but now we can score one positive for Woerth. I think Moak did many things right, but fell too deeply in love with his own irresistible ascent, and some of his most effective tactics.

But I think you're getting me to equate Lawson with Wychor. Am I correct? Take away the personal insult to the Delta furloughees, and the lawsuit via the RJDC proxy, and we're there.

 

Thanks, DeadHead. That's very helpful. I don't relish that much time behind the wheel, but I'd rather enjoy a comfortable drive while listening to an audiobook than bite my nails hoping I'll make the commuter flight out of Providence.

 

Sorry, but I must disagree. The change that made "network or national unity a hypothetical" was done in 1998 and affirmed at the 2000 BOD meeting.

Lawson, the RJDC, and furloughs were the unwitting fall out; reactions to, and effects of, a policy of disunity. All of those unfortunate things came after ALPA's policy change on alter-ego and were a result of the conflict created by that policy change.

Unity is the high ground. Whoever supports unity will eventually win.

Getting back to the topic of the DPA fight, this is like Gettysburg. The DPA may have even fought a hell of a battle up to now, but like the Confederate General, they don't have a map of this foreign soil they are about to fight on. ALPA may have screwed up and let the DPA within a couple days march to Herndon, but ALPA somewhere has maps. Those maps show where the high ground is ... unity.

Unity is there for the taking right now. The DPA has failed to sieze upon it.

 

Based on the similarity of Lawson's proposals to what we see in the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement, the only significant distinction between the men is that Wychor has been effective.

 

Good point. Alfa ticks me off, just wanted to throw some heat his way.

 

It was not cavalier at all. When people are on furlough, most of them found other jobs. They may have been at NetJets, or ASA, or working for their father's insurance company. It is cavalier to make them have to decide to quit their job when you have no clue as to whether or not they will have solid employment for more than six months. We took a shot at avoiding bankruptcy in 2004 but no one was under the impression that it was a sure thing. We knew that staffing efficiencies would allow Delta to operate with about 700 fewer pilots in 2006 than they needed in 2005. So everyone involved, the MEC, management, the administration, the negotiators tried to find the path that would provide the most assurance to all the pilots, both the ones that were recalled in 2005 and those that were yet to be recalled.

Northwest furloughed pilots twice. United furloughed pilots twice. US Airways furloughed pilots twice. TWA and Pan Am all furloughed twice. You tell me, would you want to take a recall with a 6 month guarantee of employment? Northwest went bankrupt in September 2005, the same day Delta did. They furloughed pilots in November 2005 and kept furloughing until February 2006. It was almost 200 pilots. They were still bringing back pilots from furlough in 2008, three years later. The most junior pilot furloughed had been on property for 8 months from his last furlough.

When bankruptcy hit we lost the entire 737-200 fleet. We were overstaffed by hundreds of pilots. If we had 600-700 more, what in the world would make you think they would not furlough those pilots? Seriously, are you daft?

It was not cavalier at all. What is cavalier is that we should "hope" that management would not furlough. Did you see what bankruptcy was? What in the hell would give you "hope" that management would hold on to hundreds and hundreds of extra pilots that they didn't need? So you want some pilot to quit his job that is feeding his family on some vague "hope" that everything would work out well? Are you cruel or just ignorant?

Unless you are completely insane, you would see how the most caring and kind thing you could do was not force people into making these life altering decisions with no security behind it. Everyone was quite happy that once a pilot was recalled at Delta, they had a job and they weren't just used for a few months and then tossed aside again. Yet you want these pilots to live on some vague "hope". I wonder if the Kroger's accepted "hope" when those double furloughed pilots needed to feed their kids.

Get rid of your anger and use your brain for once in your life. Or maybe you are just a cruel person that likes to play with people's lives like they are pawns.

 

OK.

Here's where your logic train becomes derailed. The company didn't say this...DALPA did. Next.

Again, company never said that...DALPA did.

Again, company never said that...DALPA did.

Now this is something management actually DID say.

Given the above, you'll probably want to rethink your attempt at making hypocrites out of people who are displeased with DALPA.

Carl

 

Not that it matters but I don't think it was LOA 46, more like 51 I believe. If I remember correctly when that vote came up, Delta was already in the recall process and was planning on meeting or beating the recall schedule so to many it seemed like a moot point and if they could get something for it, why not. As it turned out, didn't Delta meet or beat that recall schedule anyway? (Or come pretty close to it?)

Maybe the first sign of proactive engagement?

Denny