No, he's actually right about that. I saw a schedule for next month that has RAW credit for PDs on it

Thanks for the kind words. My point was I have stated it on here many many times, and I am not going to waste the time to go look it up again. Period.

I am not sure how you do not see me as straight with our pilots. My position on Scope, Pay, Retirement, and DPA has not changed. We disagree on the means to the end, and that is fine. I am continually trying to find ways to increase leverage to get to the end game we all want. The airline environment is dynamic and the items that were part of the discussion three months ago have changed. The map and cheese is constantly moving.

What we have as facts right now are: We are less than 90 days from the openers, AMR is in CH11 and them sitting in court protection really screws with gains, and them surviving with a gutted contract is really bad for our pilot group(Pray they can stop it). That changes the discussion and pressure points. If you have a way to force the NMB and DAL management to give us restoration day one without AMR fragmenting, then lest see it.

We disagree on many issues and that is OK. It keeps the debate and dialogue alive. That is needed to move this group forward.

I have responded directly to you, and to others with the verboten answer from the P2P website.

Oh and 88, even politicians need to have a harsh side to them as well.

In the end we both want restoration. I do not see the SWA CBA as the end all. It has many shortcomings to it. With the new FT/DT regs, going to their rules would be extremely short sighted and cost us pilot jobs and a ton of protections we currently have. I also think that domestically they have great scope, but outside of the intra US flying they could get clobbered if Kelly decided to take AMR's place in OneWorld. He literally would not even need to consult SWAPA. That is one thing I really disagree with you on. I do agree that we need to be paid better than they do, and am willing to look at any way that can get us there.

ALPA will get you the next agreement, like it or not. It is high time that we keep the reps honest, and get behind them. If we continue with this divided philosophy, we are in for a very nasty ride.

Except we have to (mostly) fund our own retirements.

I'm not confusing things. His previous sentence dealt with the survey results and he said that they wouldn't be shared with us for "obvious" reasons. The next sentence dealt with the opener, and he stated what I posted earlier. Now we have people saying an LEC chairman got it wrong because their P2P volunteer said we would all get to see our opener.

Until the MEC mails us the opener, I'm believing my LEC chairman. But I also know the MEC has no opener to send to anyone...until they finish their meetings with the MEC's of our direct RJ competitors over what will be allowed into our scope opener.

Carl

True, but there are many sides to that. Payouts v frozen pensions et al. Alfa's point as I took it was added compensation to the group as a whole. Not what was brought from each pre merger side.

The MEC meet the last two days doing the planning, will meet again next month and again in March. Our MEC not our MEC and others.

Your responses have been utterly politically motivated from day one on the topic of achieving gains to our profession. You change constantly depending upon the amount of heat you were getting. I'm pretty sure that's how DAL88 came to see you that way.

It only changes things if you start off making management's case for them. It will not factor into the NMB because we currently have other profitable competitors from which to compare.

The same one you and the other ALPA apologists continue to ignore: End negotiations by accepting the SWAPA contract in it's entirety. It would represent C2K pay restoration and a scope section we haven't had for decades. The NMB would be hard pressed to say no to us demanding what our other main profitable competitor already has.

But this all assumes DALPA wants this for us, and of course...they do not. This is why they won't discuss the SWAPA contract other than to distort what's in it. It's key to being able to blame the NMB as to why the TA is weak.

Carl

Not with regard to our scope section. That section opener CANNOT be produced until after meetings with the unions of our direct regional competitors. Do you need me to post that portion of the ALPA policy manual...again?

Carl

ACL, incorrect. Near-international is limited to 5% ASM. Far international is not allowed.