|
|
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
(Post 1659723)
Wow, I post a transcript of the company talking about how well they are doing (historically well) along with a member of the management team selling some of his stock for 6 million and a bunch of guys show up here stating we have no leverage, take what is offered then cite lots of reasons we shouldn't expect much.
I'm baffled by the white flag waiving. Management reads these boards. He11 management apparently posts on this board. Even if you think we have no leverage why post that to let management see we have already accepted we should get cost neutral or a net loss in everything we do with them I tend to side with the guys who say the starting point is to state our goals clearly and get all the troops behind it. No matter the obstacles unless you engage the whole group by bringing them into the process you lesson your ability to get anything done. Maybe that is part of the apathy we are seeing. Most know the union leadership are not willing to make the necessary changes to really rally the troops and therefore we should expect very little History is full of insurmountable obstacles that were overcome. Those who overcame were willing to stand up and put all resources into action. To create a strategy, write down goals, rally those around them. Unfortunately we aren't seeing much of that from our union leadership. They pacify with a few bold words but when we have an opportunity a cost neutral solution is put forward and spun as a win. Why not do things a different way. We need to re-evaluate constructive engagement. It's become a problem for us getting compensation, work rules, QOL, etc back on track. Spot on...... |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1659696)
I'll respectfully disagree.
I think the average of the Delta pilots' opinions would be a very good indicator of what we think we are worth. And just as the market determines stock price, so too, the market determines what we are actually worth. Respectfully submitted too. Then I respectfully submit that ALPA do a better job of "communicating" to the A4A and the flying public of what we are worth. What is wrong with ALPA managing some expectations for once? A4A members do it professionally. And constantly. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1659549)
I thought it was all about the spread of the crack?! :eek::eek::D
Not than some of us have never paid for that before! |
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
(Post 1659723)
Wow, I post a transcript of the company talking about how well they are doing (historically well) along with a member of the management team selling some of his stock for 6 million and a bunch of guys show up here stating we have no leverage, take what is offered then cite lots of reasons we shouldn't expect much.
I'm baffled by the white flag waiving. Management reads these boards. He11 management apparently posts on this board. Even if you think we have no leverage why post that to let management see we have already accepted we should get cost neutral or a net loss in everything we do with them? I tend to side with the guys who say the starting point is to state our goals clearly and get all the troops behind it. No matter the obstacles unless you engage the whole group by bringing them into the process you lesson your ability to get anything done. Maybe that is part of the apathy we are seeing. Most know the union leadership are not willing to make the necessary changes to really rally the troops and therefore we should expect very little. History is full of insurmountable obstacles that were overcome. Those who overcame were willing to stand up and put all resources into action. To create a strategy, write down goals, rally those around them. Unfortunately we aren't seeing much of that from our union leadership. They pacify with a few bold words but when we have an opportunity a cost neutral solution is put forward and spun as a win. Why not do things a different way. We need to re-evaluate constructive engagement. It's become a problem for us getting compensation, work rules, QOL, etc back on track. I thought about highlighting doughnut talking points, but decided against it. Some of your points though, have some validity. Here's your challenge: Make a business case to support those points. Convince me to believe that it is in the company's best interest to give us raises and benefits that will be out of line with the rest of the industry in which we compete. No emotional rhetoric like "white flag waving" and "Delta pilots gave disproportionately" or any of that. Our contract as a whole is better than any other group out there. Non emotional business case as to why it should be disproportionally better. And before you start in on me as being an apologist or surrender monkey or some other horse****, I am only asking you for a dispassionate business case. I am not rendering judgment one way or the other. Stating goals is fine, and if it makes you and gszg feel better, I'll even chip in for the ad in the NYT. I think it is a waste of money and effort, but if that will quell your passion for a mission statement, I'll get on board. But you then have to tell me how to achieve those goals other than just yelling "because we deserve it". Deal? |
One other thing today
I know it is a little late in the day for this, but if you are fortunate enough to be flying today with a member of The Greatest Generation on board, take a minute, and thank him/her for all the things we have that they made possible. Not just today, but every time you see one of them remember that. They did more for us than we could ever possibly repay and the opportunity to give them the thank you they earned is not going to be possible for much longer.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1659419)
No, but you seem to think that running an ad in the paper will magically make them disappear. State our goals... yeah.. I get it. Then what?
And I also know that we do not operate in a vacuum. You really need to be over on the AAL/UAL/SWA boards telling them to get off their collective arses and up the bar. (Which NONE of them have done) That will be far more productive and beneficial to our cause than harping on dALPA to write another mission statement. I can guess who many of you are, the usual suspects. The shadow MEC. Roger White I'm sure you are here. I have to acknowledge your success in bypassing the MEC with your cohorts. Giving away a significant portion of our profit sharing and disregarding direction on pay rates. I think selling us out again will be more difficult. Different MEC and a pilot group that is paying more attention. I support our MEC and our negotiators 100%. I am hoping for the best. I am very disheartened to read posts like yours and others listing reasons we cannot succeed. Let me be clear, if we cannot attain a historic C2015 in this environment, you couldn't get laid in a *****house with a fist full of fifties. Jerry Fielding |
I've flown with a number of managers, and very specifically told them I didn't believe in the 717 plan B carrot. Mgmt is too financially smart to throw all that money into re-engining the 50 seaters and pass up on the 717 deal. It just didn't make sense.
It was admitted that the 717s were coming with or without C2012, and "plan B" was just to draw out negotiations. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1659746)
No surprise that you begin to list excuses and lower expectations. Management nonsense. They just returned $2.75 billion to the shareholders in a second round and somehow it's ok that the largest contributors to our success remain under bankruptcy concessions.
I can guess who many of you are, the usual suspects. The shadow MEC. Roger White I'm sure you are here. I have to acknowledge your success in bypassing the MEC with your cohorts. Giving away a significant portion of our profit sharing and disregarding direction on pay rates. I think selling us out again will be more difficult. Different MEC and a pilot group that is paying more attention. I support our MEC and our negotiators 100%. I am hoping for the best. I am very disheartened to read posts like yours and others listing reasons we cannot succeed. Let me be clear, if we cannot attain a historic C2015 in this environment, you couldn't get laid in a *****house with a fist full of fifties. Jerry Fielding |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1659747)
I've flown with a number of managers, and very specifically told them I didn't believe in the 717 plan B carrot. Mgmt is too financially smart to throw all that money into re-engining the 50 seaters and pass up on the 717 deal. It just didn't make sense.
It was admitted that the 717s were coming with or without C2012, and "plan B" was just to draw out negotiations. Why the need for the historical revisionism spouted by Gloopy, Scambo, and now you? There was never going to be billions poured into aircraft engine overhauls. ALPA never said there was. There was a bunch that C2012 allowed them to not spend that got shifted to us instead. There was a path to more mainline flying that allowed management to get out of 50 seaters quicker. Tell me again how many DAL has parked since 2012 versus how many UAL/AAL have parked? If this forum intellect was correct the numbers would be similar for all carriers... Oh, you forgot, there were those little things like contracts and ownership costs associated with the CRJ-200's. And that management still wants about 125 of them in the system, and that they had a path to get to around 200-225 without our help. On that path they would have taken about 30 mainline planes vice 88. Instead we got all 88, over 20% in compensation increases and the amount of job creation is very close to the predicted number. So believe what you will (this forum isn't supposed to discuss religion), but please support it with a little bit of logic and fact.
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1198771)
You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you poison the (reasoning) pool if you put your hope and theory out there as fact. |
Wow. The usual suspects are out in force managing expectations downward.
What's the occasion? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:49 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands