That's such a cop out. Why don't you try debating the issues rather than deflecting with that crap? Not everyone can or wants to be a rep... and I'm sorry but that doesn't disqualify any of us from stating our opinions. I have yet to see anyone in DALPA give me any indication whatsoever that they are working with the objective of restoring the value of our profession and our careers back to what we all reasonably expected when we were hired. Until I see that, I'm going to be critical. I pay dues just like everybody else and I call it like I see it. If you don't like it, you can KMA.

I think "the reps" are selling us short. I think they've bought into the DALPA conventional wisdom that bankruptcy was a reset and that we can only expect "reasonable" improvements from the unreasonable cuts we took, which means restoration is off the table. I don't buy that. And there are thousands of us (maybe a majority, maybe not) that don't buy it either.

There's nothing magic about stating an objective. It takes a lot more than just that... developing a plan, implementing the plan, and making sure we have the resolve to achieve the plan. No one (including me) has ever said it would be easy. I think it would have been a little easier if we had come out of bankruptcy and immediately began pursuing restoration, instead of spending the past DECADE acting like we don't ever expect anything of the sort. THAT, my friend, has made the task infinitely more difficult.

But there is one thing I can virtually guarantee you. And that is the glaringly obvious observation that one is extremely unlikely to achieve something significant and difficult without first defining the objective and then developing a plan around that objective. The fact that DALPA refuses to do this with restoration tells me everything I need to know about their intentions. And when my reps go along with that, it tells me everything I need to know about them.

See the above sentence in bold. I'm still waiting on that one. I've been disappointed by every rep I've ever had in ATL, with the one exception of Sam D. THAT is the kind of "stick to your guns" principle we need and are sorely missing IMO.

I'll second that!

Okay, I agree with most of that. I too have a high level of respect for the responsibility with which they have been entrusted. I also know it's not easy and it's not going to be easy. Not after the kind of massive cuts we took. And especially not after we've wasted all this time acting like we don't ever expect to rectify that situation.

But you don't ever give up on something that's important to you... unless you've predetermined that it's not possible. And THAT is where I think the real disagreement is. I believe restoration IS possible. Definitely not easy, but possible. Most of those in the MEC over the past decade either believe or have been willing to go along with the belief that restoration is not possible because it would take "unreasonable" improvements. Since it's mathematically impossible to recover from unreasonable losses with reasonable increases within any kind of reasonable time frame, then ipso facto DALPA believes restoration is off the table. And we've spent the past decade telegraphing to the whole world that we believe it's off the table!

I disagree. The vast majority of what I say here is disagreement based on facts. I look at the facts and form my opinions. I often use those facts to support my opinions. Others look at the same set of facts and form a different opinion. So be it.

My reps have continually disappointed me for the past decade. As far as I'm concerned, this restoration as an objective thing is not negotiable. If a rep doesn't support restoration, then that's a non starter for me. I've seen too many examples of flips flops once someone gets elected as a rep and too many examples of political non-answers to input. I call it the way I see it. If you don't like it... tough.

 

For the record, I have been very direct with my reps. There should be no doubt with any of them what I think of them (as reps).

I'd love to be able to post some of my email exchanges here. I think it would be very eye opening to many. But there's a little legal disclaimer at the bottom of all those rep's emails that says I can't do that. And since I don't want to get in legal trouble, I think I'll pass on that.

FWIW, here's my short assessment on the current ATL reps:

HC - Doesn't like me from the get-go from the old DALPA Forum. He knows he's not going to change my opinion so he doesn't even try. Just gives me legalistic/political "noted" type answers without really saying anything. Total waste of my effort even taking the time to send him any input.

DH - Great guy. By far the most non-political of the whole bunch. Ultimately though, he seems to go along with the thinking of the others. I don't see him standing up and going against the grain of the DALPA political machine.

AG - Another great guy. He and I couldn't disagree more on Delta pilot issues. But he's gone out of his way to be extremely nice and respectful to me whenever I've run into him in person. That really impresses me. He's about as far to the other end of the spectrum from my way of thinking as a person could get... but he doesn't make it personal. And he always answers my emails and debates respectfully. I greatly respect that... even though I'd rather not have people who think like him representing me. Outside of Delta pilot/DALPA issues, I think we could be good friends.

DN - I strongly supported him the first time he ran and lost. After that, he totally changed his positions on just about everything. I do not respect that at all and did not support him when he ran this last time. Corresponding with him is extremely painful and frustrating because he so careful crafts his words so that sometimes it sounds like he's saying what he thinks I want to hear but it's worded in a way where it gives him an out. I hate that kind of crap. And, ultimately, he seems to go along with the DALPA political machine too... which means (you guessed it) restoration is off the table. UNSAT.

 

So is there any correlation with our 747's being parked and Virgin Atlantic starting up increased service with I'm guessing here... 747's???

 

It's honestly tough to tell. VA doesn't do routes we did with the whale, but in reality, it's not about aircraft type, it's about capacity in a given market.

As far as I can tell, we don't really have any protections with integrating VA into our network, but they're integrated.

 

I just wanted to show everyone how you yelled at me on the field.

 

I feel like 717s look shorter in the Delta paint scheme vs the AirTran paint scheme. Does anyone know if our 717s are shorter then theirs?

 

I'm such a lousy aircraft recognition guy. Sitting in a bigger jet cockpit gives you a different viewpoint/perspective than sitting closer to the ground. I was jumpseating in a couple weeks ago in the cockpit of an embraer and there was a 717 taxiing by. I said "that's a big crj" the capt said "that's a 717, you must fly something big."

So, yeah, I think they are shorter than airtrans'.

 

On the old DALPA Forum, Roger White had an analogy he liked to use that might help answer that question. Something involving a bathroom stall...

 

I heard southwest removed 13.3 feet from the flux capacitor....

 

Maybe in relation to their pilots being shorter and not looking like Big Bird? (Or maybe because all the Southwestern pilots have smaller "wrist watches?")