Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1165342)

Nothing was taken out of context. You asked for opinions to gauge a response to a proposal that in your opinion improved scope by allowing larger jets to be outsourced in exchange for fewer in number. Pilots piled on with opinions that your proposal was not something that they would find acceptable. When your trial balloon came back all shot full of holes, the logical extrapolation was that our MEC should get the same result from their trial balloon and crap can the "re-balancing" version of a scope sale concept.

Don't know how you determine standard deviation from comments on this board (which were unanimous against your concept). Perhaps you are privy to the survey data which shows pay as by far the leading interest of Delta pilots. If so, consider that the survey did not consider whether a scope concession was an immediate existential threat to ALPA as the bargaining agent for Delta pilots going forward.

I support ALPA, but more so, I support my fellow pilots (even you). Unity does not allow more outsourcing, even if fewer 70 seaters (ahem ... unwanted 50 seaters) balance the deal. Management can get them, but a Delta Pilot must fly them.

Why not negotiate a lower DAL 70 seater rate that puts us in the game and give the widebody guys more money? That's more of a win / win than more out sourcing and really, the productivity of the larger jets justify more of a pay differential than we have now.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1165405)

You got to go take a Harry Alger?

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1165600)

He's too young to get that.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1165439)

Yeah, I know. Those hot heads can be a real problem:


V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V




;););)

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1152171)

I know you couldn't care less about strengthening scope unless it is given to us as a no cost item.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1152179)

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

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1165598)

You can call it what you will as far as my position goes. I will tell you this.. I will not vote to allow any more outsourcing. That being said, I will not vote to pay to recover any either.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1165617)

Thanks for that tsquare. Confession is good for the soul.

Carl

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1165624)

No problem... but you do understand the last part too... I won't vote to cut YOUR pay to make sure Jack Bauer is a captain for the next 20-25 years... well.. maybe YOUR pay.. but not Timbo's.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1165626)

Can we build consensus behind bidding 76 seat flying at market rates and let Jack decide what he's going to fly. Meanwhile give all of us something to look forward to with productivity based pay on the big jets.

Originally Posted by Mem9guy (Post 1165627)

Our contracts in this industry primarily get opened by two things, bankruptcy or threat of bankruptcy, and RLA section 6. Rather than think of things as single issues, the only thing you can do when presented with a TA to vote on, is decide if what is in front of you is better than what you will get if you say no and elect to continue the process.

Until I see a TA to vote on, I really can't sit here and say what I will or will not vote for. A no vote will say to the company and DALPA that I think they can do better with the overall contract. A yes vote does not mean that I agree line by line with everything in a TA, just that I don't think that a continuation of the process will produce better results.

Stay engaged in what is going on with the negotiations so that when the time comes you can make an educated decision. That is really all any of us can do right now.