There's nothing revisionist about what I posted. It is what I suspected from the get go because it made sense.

I asked questions and got answers... and you're wrong about who is qualified on the airbus, anyways. The hint at plan B planes was smoke and mirrors, and you apparently fell for it. All the 717s would have come, regardless. There is no way financially that it wouldn't have happened- use your noggin and drop the sales pitch.


And sailing- you are correct, I should have said overhauls and not re-engining.

 

Very well stated Ed.

Carl

 

It's not a question of you being a surrender monkey or some other name. It's that you're not supportive of being in a union. You're only supportive of being in an association that pretends to occasionally act like a union. Your mindset has been changed (or maybe you've always been this way) to that of an investor class and independent contractor. You believe that what's best for management will ultimately trickle down to employees and be best for them. And if employees don't like it, then quit.

It's hard to tell whether your belief system is the Delta pilot majority, or whether mine is. But it's clear our association is "all in" on the concept of partnering with management, and that shows no sign of changing.

Carl

 

I think Carl's point here is extremely important for everyone to read.

 

Fascinating that slowplay would accuse Clamp of "revising history" when slowplay displays his ever changing history. Years prior to C2012, slowplay and the other MEC administrators that regularly post here were clear that aiding our company to show profits was the best method to ensure we have the leverage we need to make gains. When profits came, slowplay said we needed to show sustained profits to ensure we had the leverage to make gains. When sustained profits came, slowplay said we can only make gains comparable to our competitors (excluding FDX, UPS and our JV competitors). When record and sustained profits came, slowplay and team simply redefined the term "gains" and high fived one another.

Carl

 

Before I answer that, do you mean publishing the survey results before negotiations or after a new contract is reached.

Carl

 

Good question, T, and honestly I don't know. It's probably very hard to decouple one's individual needs from the desired salary. I think Sailing has a good point as well...what we think we are worth may be different from what we actually are worth to the company.

I do think it should relate to the difficulty in getting here, the amount of responsibility we have, the regular performance evaluations, medical and fitness standards, etc. There are some $100k jobs where people don't have 200 lives in their hands, don't wear a uniform, can get fat, aren't regularly evaluated, and can head to Denver to smoke pot on the weekend if they want to. $200k jobs, not as many. $300k jobs, even fewer. The RJ FO has many of those same requirements but obviously does it for a fraction of the money. I don't think anyone would argue that they are underpaid. Somehow supply and demand has people still willing to do it, but maybe only because they consider it a stepping stone?

I agree with Sailing to a point, but I also think that what we collectively think we are worth helps DETERMINE our actual worth. As an extreme example, what if all RJ pilots agreed tomorrow they would no longer work for less than $50/hr. If they held to that (RLA notwithstanding), I think the market would eventually determine that $50/hr is the going rate for RJ FOs. Impossible across the whole industry, but what about at one airline?

To Gloopy, totally agree on the scope portion and that pay rates aren't the end all. So many variables there, it's hard to come up with a simple scenario with those included. But all the things you said would make you vote no would draw a no vote from me as well! It does scare me that MD says "we have heard you loud and clear, and your number one concern is pay." I surely hope we don't give up any more profit sharing, reserve QOL, work rules, or scope to get those pay rates.

Last point for tonight...I personally think (and hope) the tide might be turning for ALPA. The latest contract mod was the first time I've seen positive words about ALPA from more than a few folks here (and obviously we are a statistically correct sample of the Delta pilots at large!) We want a union behind which we can rally, and I think they should be doing anything possible to garner this support. If survey results can be released without incurring a great strategic cost, then I think it would be a good faith gesture simply because it was a point of contention on the last contract.

 

I mean ever. During our last contract, survey questions were asked about rigs, augmentation, and getting a first class seat for deadheads during South flying.

Had ALPA published where those items ranked among others right after the contract was ratified, do you think those rankings could have impacted FAR 117 negotiations that started a year later?

 

739s suck (not sure how to get it out of facebook):

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

 

That's unknowable. What you are doing is making a case to never release survey results. I know of no other entity or act that actually plans on never releasing the results of a survey. Imagine you having the right to vote for president, but the results of your vote and your other citizens votes are never released? Our dues pay for the polling, but we members are specifically excluded from seeing what we've paid for.

Not sure of what case you're trying to make here Splash, but it's an indefensible position to suggest that members should never see the results of their own opinions.

Carl