Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 926452)

So very well said. And the best way to keep an outrageous demand outrageous is by waiting until it is made to shoot it down, not by giving it legitimacy upfront.

There is such universal agreement on the notion that scope is not negotiable on this board, and most likely in the pilot group. It is then baffling that many are getting their panties in a wad because the MEC Chairman, when reflecting upon what the membership told him was most important, didn't decide to add any editorials to suggest the pilots were confused and really meant scope is important.

I don't think the Delta pilots are confused at all: they say what they mean. If the reps and the reps' rep hear from us that we want more money, it's probably because most of us are asking for... more money. Then again, most pilots probably believe scope is not a negotiatble item, and are smart enough not to make it a negotiable item by negotiating about it in public.

Of course, the company will attempt to make outrageous demands in terms of outsourcing (including the heavy-gauge JV stuff, which is even more dangerous than the RJ plague), and at that time, I would expect the MEC, the Chairman, and the Negotiating Committing, to flatly tell them it's not a negotiating item.

I can't think of anything more ridiculous than a strategy of preempting negotiations by giving the opposition a list of non-negotiable items. The mere act of doing so weakens our position, and accomplishes nothing but the company's homework, by drafting a hostage list for them.

So the fact that Scope isn't mentioned doesn't bother me at all. I expect that, as we get more discussion sessions going about our next contract, we will discuss Scope, just like we will address Retirement, etc.

If I look for flaws in TO's letter, it's actually that I think he made a mistake by revelaing what pilots tell their reps is of primary concern to them. If I read him correctly, pilots think the contract needs a little tweaking, but they want money, and they want it fast. "I want money, and I want it fast" doesn't sound like a great slogan, or the foundation to a great negotiation. "I want a clean contract back, I want my dignity back, I want my flying back, and I want rates that reflect my worth. I'm willing to let the place burn in my quest to get it"... sounds more like it.

So it's not that TO said too little that bothers me, is that even the line about what is primary was superfluous. Unfortunately he may be quite accurate about what pilots want, which is all the more reason to have ommitted it.

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 926440)

Here you go!

http://www.strykepc.com/myspace/ou/greatd.jpg

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 926308)

But, in a way, wasn't that what slow was saying? Why is he getting bashed from former North guys?

Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 926486)

Heyas,

You DON'T need a 100 seater at DCI to replace 100 seat flying at the mainline.

Look at it now...they have 70/76 seaters doing the work of DC-9s/737s.

If you give away 100 seats to DCI, you are essentially giving away the 125 seaters at the mainline. Kiss goodbye to the MD88s/A319s.

Nu

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 926477)

Sink,

Great post! I agree that we shouldn't be showing our cards to MGMT; however, DALPA has some damage control to do with its membership. We've been mushroomed and told to trust. When we finally find out what's in the deal, it's too late to change anything and some aren't happy - agreed in any group no one is going to like it all. The point is, the communications from DALPA to the membership have been shoddy since I joined Delta.

I think he'll have to have a few communiques with us before we'll be ready to trust. We shouldn't give anything up, think those that went before me have already done it and more. We should walk in, listen politely, then respond. Don't give up a thing. What we do for the company has value, all they have to do is agree on the dollar amount of that value.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 926452)

So very well said. And the best way to keep an outrageous demand outrageous is by waiting until it is made to shoot it down, not by giving it legitimacy upfront.

There is such universal agreement on the notion that scope is not negotiable on this board, and most likely in the pilot group. It is then baffling that many are getting their panties in a wad because the MEC Chairman, when reflecting upon what the membership told him was most important, didn't decide to add any editorials to suggest the pilots were confused and really meant scope is important.

I don't think the Delta pilots are confused at all: they say what they mean. If the reps and the reps' rep hear from us that we want more money, it's probably because most of us are asking for... more money. Then again, most pilots probably believe scope is not a negotiatble item, and are smart enough not to make it a negotiable item by negotiating about it in public.

Of course, the company will attempt to make outrageous demands in terms of outsourcing (including the heavy-gauge JV stuff, which is even more dangerous than the RJ plague), and at that time, I would expect the MEC, the Chairman, and the Negotiating Committing, to flatly tell them it's not a negotiating item.

I can't think of anything more ridiculous than a strategy of preempting negotiations by giving the opposition a list of non-negotiable items. The mere act of doing so weakens our position, and accomplishes nothing but the company's homework, by drafting a hostage list for them.

So the fact that Scope isn't mentioned doesn't bother me at all. I expect that, as we get more discussion sessions going about our next contract, we will discuss Scope, just like we will address Retirement, etc.

If I look for flaws in TO's letter, it's actually that I think he made a mistake by revelaing what pilots tell their reps is of primary concern to them. If I read him correctly, pilots think the contract needs a little tweaking, but they want money, and they want it fast. "I want money, and I want it fast" doesn't sound like a great slogan, or the foundation to a great negotiation. "I want a clean contract back, I want my dignity back, I want my flying back, and I want rates that reflect my worth. I'm willing to let the place burn in my quest to get it"... sounds more like it.

So it's not that TO said too little that bothers me, is that even the line about what is primary was superfluous. Unfortunately he may be quite accurate about what pilots want, which is all the more reason to have ommitted it.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot;926354[COLOR=red

]I am going to make this really easy for you.[/COLOR] Call each of your reps and ask them what they would do if the company came to them with a 30,40,50,60,70,80,% etc pay raise in exchange for scope relief. If they say they are open to it, talk to them, if they tell you, you do not understand, make sure you have pilots in there that do. It cannot get simpler than that. That is part of the election process.

I will also repeat once again, I do not see one rep going for this. If there are a few, it will not be the majority no matter what pay carrot is waved. Maybe the company will try, and maybe the union will have the reps vote it down, but I just do not see this coming to a pilot vote. If by some chance it does, and we vote "yes" for it, we get what is coming to us. At best I see 30% voting for anything that give up scope, and I really do not even see it being that high. The only issue we have is senior pilots can sell our farm because once they retire they have no attachment to it. Other than that, it will hurt way to much to everyone's career.

Originally Posted by Gladioslave (Post 926206)

I have a buddy that started on Jan. 5th, SWA's first new class in a long time and their network director passed on to them "IF I were Delta I'd be very sacred in Atlanta". Any thoughts??