Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 754393)

Total cost of us is about the 9-10% of revenue Carl. Not the increase. I increase that you are suggesting is about 4-5% for total restoration. I agree that 5% is minuscule.

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 754402)

Not anticipating this, but do you really think this group at DALPA would enforce this? My guess is for them to furlough 500+ (or whatever the # is), it would be a FM type event/economic condition which would lead those in charge to firmly plant there tails between their legs and capitulate. No faith this would be enforced--just getting furlough pay may be too much to ask.

Schwanker

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 754293)

Carl,

I think there is a pretty big silent majority out there in this pilot group that feels the way I do. I'm not one to rock the boat and be very vocal in an online format whether it is here or the DALPA webboards. How many pilots post on this board and the DALPA webboard combined......100.......200 even 300? That's such a small percentage of us now that I don't know if you can draw the conclusion you have from it. I don't really see the point of making my blood pressure rise discussing shoulda, coulda, woulda's. I don't want anyone junior to me moving up a number too soon!:D

During our C2K contract negotiations I really believe that the fDAL pilot group would have gone on strike if the need arose. I know there has been a lot of talk deriding things that happened during the negotiations such as emptying out our lockers etc. but I know I was prepared to walk out and everyone I talked to at the time was too. I don't remember what the strike vote percentage was but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 97+ percent.

I believe the DAL chapter of ALPA has been very pragmatic and non emotional in it's approach to DAL management. The 'Hey it's nothing personal it's business attitude.' Because of this I believe that when push comes to shove the Union has/will have credibility with management and they will take us seriously. I know the arguments that we have rolled over on various issues that have arisen such as the 76 seat scope while we were in bankruptcy and then the number of permitted 76 seaters after bankruptcy. But the key words there are 'in bankruptcy' and our clout was seriously compromised at the time. Before anyone gets in an uproar, I didn't agree with it then and certainly don't now.

The big question now is our ablilty to negotiate under the RLA and whether we will have the capability to go on strike if we have to. We will have seriously diminished leverage if it is preordained by the government that we cannot strike. This is where national and our government contacts come into play. We'll just have to see what happens here. Personally I'm of the mind to "walk softly and carry a big stick." I'd rather go into negotiations with the attitude that either we get a fair contract or we're going on strike rather than go thru motions of a work slowdown or whatever else is dreamt up. Don't get me wrong, I'll do what it takes but the above is my preference. To me it's a clean and elegant strategy and avoids any lawsuit/injunction by management. Although any lawsuit/injunction they pursue will only seve to unify the pilot group more.

Anyway you now have an insight to my thought processes and why I don't normally get involved in some of the discussions in this thread and also why I think the way I do. Plus, alot of the discussions go completely over my head and/or make my brain hurt!!:D This is probably the longest post I've written and proofed so hopefully the spelling is correct but I can't attest to the grammer!!!:)

DennyCraaaaane!

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom (Post 754377)

Carl,

To piggyback on Denny's comments, I would agree that DAL-S pilots were pretty fired up for Contract 2000. However, Contract 2000 followed a very concessionary contract referred to as POS 96. That contract was approved by the DAL-S pilots by a substantial (and surprisingly large) majority.

As Contract 2000 was being negotiated it was interesting that very few pilots would own up to the fact that they had voted for POS 96.

That lead me to the conclusion that DAL-S pilots in general talk tough in the cockpit, the crewroom and on Internet forums; but they vote in the privacy of their homes. There the thought process is: "It's not that bad a contract. I've got a mortgage payments, car payments, etc. I can't afford to go on strike..." followed by a "yes" vote.

I can't recall a single instance of DAL-S pilots rejecting something the MEC endorsed. If our MEC continues lowering expectations, it'll be a very tough fight to get a good contract.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 754393)

Total cost of us is about the 9-10% of revenue Carl. Not the increase. I increase that you are suggesting is about 4-5% for total restoration. I agree that 5% is minuscule.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 754406)

If DALPA didn't enforce this, I hope the entire pilot group would remove the entire leadership. We would have no union at all if DALPA didn't enforce this.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 754399)

You're killing me here dude! I don't even want to know where you're getting these photos. :eek:

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 754406)

If DALPA didn't enforce this, I hope the entire pilot group would remove the entire leadership. We would have no union at all if DALPA didn't enforce this.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 754405)

No, the increase I'm suggesting is not 4 to 5% of revenue. If our total cost of pilot pay is 9 to 10% of revenue, then I would have to be proposing a 50% across the board increase to equal 4 to 5% of revenue...which I am not.

I am proposing industry leading wages...even if it's only 1% above Southwest. That would not equate to a 50% wage increase, and as such, would be a very, very small amount of revenue.

Carl