I agree with you. We will get the time value of money speech. We will be told that voting no is worse than voting yes.....and it will pass by about 60 percent as usual.

I can't really say at this point. I have no problem voting No If I think its a bad deal, but I don't really have a single issue litmus test. I will weigh the deal as a whole.

My voting history is about 50% yes and 50% no.

Scoop

You have no clue of what you're talking about. This is pure speculation on your part and is no different than anyone else's pure speculation...including mine. You're just a line pilot like the rest of us except with an appalling lack of grammatical skill. I'm sure you have friends in the union and management that love using you to float web board trial balloons, and the access to them makes you feel important, but stop making it sound like you know more than the rest of us. You don't. In fact, I cannot remember a single post of yours where you say something has or will happen, and it actually comes true. Not a single one. If anyone can refute that, I'd be interested in seeing it.

You'll do your credibility some rehabilitation if you would just state your thoughts and opinions instead of the definitive statements about which you have no idea. You'd also do yourself and the perception of a professional pilot a lot of good if you would learn to use "then" and "than" correctly in a sentence.

Carl

I get that, but I'm not asking about a single issue litmus test. You stated earlier that given our environment and corporate financials, it's time to go deep. I agree. But what if the TA as a whole is far from going deep? Will you still vote NO in the face of dire consequences to your family and future as stated by the MEC admins? That's the question. If you can't, "going deep" is a pipe dream because this MEC will not do that. Too much invested in the relationship with our management family members.

Carl

Absolutely. If I perceive C2015 as coming up short - in other words, a few scraps thrown our way, I will vote No.

If we as a group are not willing to risk anything I don't seeing us making substantial gains.

I, like many others who have been burned with a furlough, do not have all my eggs in the "DAL" basket.

Scoop

I agree 1000%. But I don't blame DALPA one little bit... I blame a pilot group (us) that would ever consider voting yes for two 3% raises... after the largest contract losses in airline history.

I am confident it will happen for C2015 as well.

P.s. Just got a robo call saying the survey is extended for another week... no surprise to me... literally 90+% of the pilots I fly with don't believe their input was considered in the C2012 survey.

No surprise they don't have enough to make a good statistical survey. Maybe if any of us had the slightest bit of faith that they would do what we put in the survey and show us the survey results after the contract is signed, they would get more participation.

Back to the CDO horse one more time. I DO have a problem voting no for a TA because it contains CDO's. If everything else is mostly good, why should I have to vote no because they snuck CDO's into the TA?

Nobody wants them but the company and they know if they can get them into a TA, the chance of them getting them is good. There should be absolutely NO items in the next TA that are concessionary in nature to "offset" gains. The only thing we should have to consider voting no for is that the initial pay raise is less than 20%.

Not just picking on this post because I see quite a number have followed it. I think you guys are unwittingly doing damage.

Out of deference to the thread's wishes to not get into the DPA stuff, I'll explain why on the other thread.

Carl

I agree with the fact that most of us don't believe the results were considered in C2012. I also believe that if you don't submit yours, you better not ***** about the results of the new contract.

That's my man Scoop right there!

Carl