Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1659914)

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

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1659930)

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?

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1659930)

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?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1659934)

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

Originally Posted by FlyZ (Post 1659939)

Splash, I see what you are saying...if something was near the bottom of a previous survey, management would know that it isn't desired as much as something else on the list. But should the negotiating team even be working very hard on something well down our list at the expense of things the membership ranked higher? Aren't we essentially telling management what we care about most by bringing those items to the table?

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1659760)

Just who were these flying the line managers that would know Delta's fleet plan? Unless it was Pieper (not a pilot) or higher, they don't exist on the A320 fleet. BTW, did they ever tell you what plan B was....or where the airplanes that constituted plan B went just weeks after our deal?:rolleyes:

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 80ktsClamp (Post 1659894)

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.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1659760)

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