slowplay

Condescending? How about factual. How about learning from history rather than being driven by it?

Line up the union comm from C2012. Then compare the posts of FtB, PurpleDrunk, the Manager, Scambo etc. See what was more accurate. Also, compare the comm from the various councils during the time frame.

Then compare your W-2 from 12/12 to 12/13, realizing that 12/12 had 6 months of C2012 increases in the pay.

It won't look very much like the 4833 talking point. It won't look very much like the charts and graphs from amateur analysts throughout the ratification window.

Why is it important? Call it a historical accuracy check. While past performance isn't a guarantor of future results, these folks called into question the credibility of "official" comm that you were getting. They wanted to influence your vote. That vote directly effects your wallet.

Oh, and remember that none of the carriers that came after us were able to get even as much as we got. It's still not enough, but the negateers wanted you to say "no" with no plan or methodology to do better

So yes, I think the trip is important. We're coming up on contract negotiations in a year. We've got a new NC. We've got a significantly different MEC and administration. And the relationships with management, ownership, finance and other stakeholders that got us paid first and more relies on our credibility and ability to execute as a business partner.

If we want to lead the industry, we as pilots and our bargaining agent have to be relevant. Otherwise we'll be part of the labor pack and move in concert with them. We're coming to a crossroads.

So no, it's not about being condescending or creating personal conflict. It's about how we go forward.

dalad

Sorry Timbo, not enough coffee this am. Yeah, he would be better off back tracking out of ATL-PVD.

Alan Shore

To be specific, we have a new Negotiating Committee Chairman. The other two were on the last Section 6 NC. (Not saying whether that's good or bad.)

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

Sink r8

Not a bad post at all, but you could make those points in a more elegant way if you skipped the pointing-of-the-finger part. You were piggybacking on one of sailing's posts, where he was attacking "the forum". I really don't know why he finds it important to perform this "I told you so" routine (or why you want to go one step further by naming individuals), especially since he's oversimplifying and misrepresenting much of the discussion. I see no value in this.

I think that opinion on the C2K/DPA is shifting. DPA has gone well beyond it's fifteen minutes, and failed to prove adept at... anything. Some of the predictions of advancement are materializing, even if mostly on the FO side. So there is the recognition that we're not doing too badly. A lot of guys are grinning when discussing 2013 W-2's.

HOWEVER, there is no consensus that C2012 is responsible for the growth, or that ALPA got all it could. There is still controversy about the profit-sharing. That's all still latent, but in my opinion, sentiment is shifting slowly. DPA tags and lanyards are going the way of the mullet.

There are two things you can do, in light of this: 1) let ALPA's hard work (and DPA ineptitude) drive pilot sentiment, or 2) preemptively try to lead a shift in opinion, and attack opposite viewpoints.

My read of the situation is that whomever speaks least, acts more, and lets results speak for themselves, wins.

forgot to bid

all I can think is you are upside down in frozen water with a small hole to get air. freaking nightmare.

forgot to bid

ah, I dont.

not everyone had tunnel vision on 4833. i had issues with scope.

and I guess the take away is thou shalt not question the NC, or do a little math.

or say no.

I am not sure why we are even allowed to vote.

Check Essential

I cringe when I hear you guys call yourselves a "business partner" with management.

I understand Moakism. I'm OK with constructive engagement and working together and cooperation rather than confrontation, etc. etc. but there has to be reciprocity. There has to be a balance.
I think management has been taking advantage of us in the last few "engagements".
They've become a bit too dominant in this little partnership.
I hope DALPA can pivot to a slightly more aggressive stance when it becomes necessary because right now I think management is too easily taking our lunch money every day. One of these days we are going to have to put up some resistance.

dalad

I'm thinking about seeing her comedy show in London next week. Skip the Ad it's hilarious Pam Ann - ABC Spoof [HD] - YouTube

dalad

I agree with your post 100%. 90% of the constructive engagement benefited management and nearly brought the DPA to relevancy.

slowplay

Do you cringe when you see the results of the FedEx MEC or what SWAPA produced over the last decade? Did they use Check Essentialism or a different path? IPA stood "tough" with UPS management. They got a profitable company and furloughed pilots...and didn't really exceed FedEx results in aggregate.

Can you point to examples of those similarly situated to us that have "put up some resistance" to achieve the results that you desire? Show me the path, and I'll get on the oar with you.

A goal without a plan is just a wish. Antoine de St. Exupery.