|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1156189)
It this like arguing who was the more liberal Massachusetts Democrat, Kennedy or Frank?Really? REALLY?
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1156504)
No, not at all. It's simply recognizing the trashing former DALPA people are subjected to unless they continue to show complete allegiance. It's quite unseemly.
Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1156463)
Nothing specific but the gist was for leverage in all of the pwa.
My take away is; What does the company need that we have that creates leverage? (besides cooperation) Do they really have to pin us on something we have to give? Haven't we already proven that we are them and they are us? Can I go in front of the company and the MEC and testify? Be happy to. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1156241)
At the open session brief with Linda Puchala, she told the MEC in a round about manner:
1. You are too big to strike.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1156241)
At the open session brief with Linda Puchala, she told the MEC in a round about manner:
2. Any representational questions (DPA) will lead to inaction and withdrawal on the NMB's part.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1156241)
At the open session brief with Linda Puchala, she told the MEC in a round about manner:
3. The Delta pilot group might make the appearance of progress down the path towards a release by the NMB, but at the end there are the two last steps. A. If there is a PEB, the President will put you back to work.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1156241)
At the open session brief with Linda Puchala, she told the MEC in a round about manner:
B. After a PEB the Delta pilots might think that congress would never be able to act fast enough to put us back to work through legislation. Linda said, put that out of your mind. The legislation is written with the Delta pilot's name already filled in the blank.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1156241)
This underscores the importance of making gains outside the normal Section 6 process
Carl |
Originally Posted by Wingnutdal
(Post 1156249)
I'm not very good at public math, but my abacus says 4 years. Pretty close to 5, maybe an exagerration, but certainly not a lie.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1156179)
-----------------------------------------------
Typical Contract Bargaining ...............Cycle Calculate the time between amendable dates: ADD: + Negotiations Prep after amendable date=0 + Time in Direct Negotiations=18 months + Time in RLA Mediation= 29 months + Time in Ratification Process=1 month + Time Until Next Amendable Date=4 years Contract Bargaining Cycle = 8 years ---------------------------------------------- The third bullet above is really the key because it shows that the NMB process is not a bottomless pit of surrender for labor. Now for the math. After our contract's amendable date, we'll have a maximum of 3 more months of direct negotiations, then 29 months (typical) of NMB involvement before self-help could commence. 29 plus 3 is 32 months. Not even 3 years. Would you not be willing to fight hard for 32 months if management decided to play hard ball? This is really important to understand, and NOT believe what the sailingfun's are trying to spew about the NMB process taking 5 or more years and a no-win situation for labor. Carl |
Originally Posted by XtremeF150
(Post 1156268)
Carl you and I both know that anything worth doing might take sometime. It is not worth arguing over it. Looking at the other airlines dealing with the same predicament it probably will be a while. We all know how it works so I wouldn't worry about convincing everyone. You will get your blood pressure up and won't get to vote on the TA one day when it does get here. ;)
Carl |
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1156270)
And you could argue that Ms. Pachala is absolutely correct. But you have to keep in mind that she is a mediator. Her job is to steer both parties to a mutually agreeable settlement. Fear of the unknown is one of the biggest tools they have to accomplish this. In other words, that's exactly what I'd expect her to say. She probably told the company that they will be on their own if we strike, and Emirates is a better airline anyhow.
Carl |
Carl,
Just look at contract negotiations over the last 10 years. Many airlines spent 5 years minimum in Sec 6. It took Pinnacle 5+ years. RAH has been in negotiations longer then that. I believe TranStates was in Sec 6 for 5+ years as well. Heck, how long was AirTran in negotiations before they brought ALPA in? How long has UsAir been in Sec 6? These are just a few examples. I'm not saying that we will be stuck in Sec 6, but it has happened to quite a few airlines lately. Many are in Sec 6 now, & management is able to use the RLA to drag things out. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1156312)
Either that, or a nationwide suspension of service by airline workers.
Not that I advocate such a thing, but the abuse of the RLA is truly out of hand. IMHO, the RLA should be on someone's hit list for legislative eradication. The new ALPA doesn't even mention it. Carl |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1156509)
Our cooperation, our continued high standards of safety and professionalism, our previous give backs and our agreements therefore, our due diligence and work-arounds to ensure the most seamless and successful merger of legacy airlines in commercial aviation history, our historic contributions to Delta's most profitable year ever, ......, and, if that's not enough, google US Air, UAL/CA, SWA/AT, AMR, ....
Do they really have to pin us on something we have to give? Haven't we already proven that we are them and they are us? Can I go in front of the company and the MEC and testify? Be happy to. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:34 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands