Exactly correct. And that's why it's a NO vote. Period.

Carl

 

I think guys are doing what Timbo suggested...trying to grab a relatively senior captain position with a guaranteed MD/paid move a year later to whatever they can hold. I'm not bidding it. I'm not even close to being able to hold Captain on it, and don't care to ever spend another summer in that right seat.

 

You're clearly correct. The only question now is, what strategy do us line pukes employ now that we KNOW our bargaining agent has this intention.

Carl

 

Totally incorrect. We fly a lot more hard hours per month than FDX or UPS.

I know you couldn't care less about strengthening scope unless it is given to us as a no cost item. But if you're going to continue to make management's case for them, you need to at least know that we're far more productive than our brothers at FDX and UPS.

Carl

 

First off, you are a damn liar when it comes to my feelings regarding strengthening of scope... DAMN LIAR.

Second. So then you must agree that the size of the airplane makes no difference when it comes to pay. Good.. I have you in my camp now. The M88 and the 747 should pay the same because you JUST said that we fly more hard hours than FedEx and THAT makes us more productive. Or is it the size of the airplane and the fact that it holds more people? Which is it Carl?

 

I really shouldn't let you get under my skin Carl. You have brown eyes? Thought so.


/ignore

 

I wasn't in the room, but my proof is as follows:

1. It looked just like previous openers...with the details redacted. Our union's opener template starts with the section name, then an opening declarative statement of fact as we see it, then a general goal of what we want to achieve in that section, then the detailed bullet points of what is our actual opening position. We've been shown all of this except the detailed bullets.

2. In many previous DALPA mailings, it was stated that our MEC spent the last year studying industry data, other contracts, Delta's finances with the EF&A team and pilot surveys to create a comprehensive opening position in time for the start of Section 6. They didn't spend all that time and energy to produce a concept.

3. They redacted all the details except the sprinkler system in hotels. Why would a "conceptual" opener include that extreme level of detail when scope and pay were so general? IMO, the evidence points to the fact that we exchanged openers with management the way we always have. Pilots just got the version with the details redacted...except sprinklers.

Carl

 

Capt D-Bag was flying B757(7ER), not sure if he was a LCA, had a 38min connection to make so I didn't stick around.

 

I agree with you. It's more proof that the regional MEC's and ALPA national had a hand in writing our Section 1 opener. This should come as no surprise. The Ford-Cooksey lawsuit settlement requires it, and Moak's first letter to us after being elected president said: 'We will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure contracts are not self-interested, but rather reflect what is best for the entire industry as a whole'.

But that didn't happen FIIGMO. Now what?

I never mentioned or even hinted at DPA in any part of my post. Why be irritated about something I never said?

Carl

 

Yes.

Because it's considered incest.

Carl