Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-25-2012, 10:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: M88B
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by Scoop
Beers were included in SAN! 
Scoop
Scoop
Of course after the beers a few of the conversations about the contract and union became slightly louder......wonder why
04-25-2012, 11:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by XtremeF150
I'll second that. The pitchers were flowing in Memphis with no wallets to be seen.
Of course after the beers a few of the conversations about the contract and union became slightly louder......wonder why
Of course after the beers a few of the conversations about the contract and union became slightly louder......wonder why
GJ
04-25-2012, 11:08 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Scoop
ACL,
That was just hypothetical. But if there are differences of opinion within the MEC or Negotiating committee why shouldn't the Pilot group be made aware of them?
But I am getting off point which was - I think a Pro vs. Con paper by those most familiar with ramifications of the TA would be helpful.
Scoop
That was just hypothetical. But if there are differences of opinion within the MEC or Negotiating committee why shouldn't the Pilot group be made aware of them?
But I am getting off point which was - I think a Pro vs. Con paper by those most familiar with ramifications of the TA would be helpful.
Scoop
Just me, but I assume that if there is a TA, everyone will know that the MEC is meeting to discuss it. If your scenario comes true, I am sure we will be made aware that they are taking it back. We may not know the vote count at that time, but we probably will know the rest.
FWIW, a few reps have stated that they will demand a recorded vote on the TA so that all reps are held accountable for their vote.
04-25-2012, 11:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by Elvis90
04-25-2012, 11:12 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Columbia
I'll eat Hillary Clintons toe jam if the 2012 DAL net profit is under $1,500MM.
04-25-2012, 11:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by Elvis90
Is the projected $1.86B profit in addition to paying down the 2B debt we are said to be on target with?
04-25-2012, 11:20 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Cant read the article. Don't have a WSJ subscription like you rich guys
Is the projected $1.86B profit in addition to paying down the 2B debt we are said to be on target with?
Is the projected $1.86B profit in addition to paying down the 2B debt we are said to be on target with?
Gyno: "What kind of spermacidal jelly did you use?"
Pregnant girl: "We used grape."
04-25-2012, 11:23 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Columbia
I'll eat Hillary Clintons toe jam if the 2012 DAL net profit is under $1,500MM.
That is just plain gross, no matter what you are betting.
04-25-2012, 11:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Hey Scoop,
No, because I don't need to be baby-sat, or instructed. As Scambo and others said, we don't need a sell-job for. Why would I want a sell-job against?
I want to hear how my reps voted, and I don't need it in writing. Why do I care how a rep that doesn't work for me feels?
Every watch soccer? You know how a defensive team can suddenly pullback to create an off-side? Some reps live for the politics, and they live for that stuff. The moment a vote is up, a vote they know will pass/must pass, they'll tally up the totals, then make it a point to be the (not so) loyal opposition.
I don't want to play along with that game.
By definition, if the NC turns it over to the MEC, it's the MEC's job to decide. The NC should present it, and not baby-sit the MEC. When the MEC decides to pass to us, the decision becomes ours. Any input from the reps at that point becomes either a sell job, or an attempt to influence me the other way.
Either one is unsat.
OK, this is a little different than the other paragraph. Would I want to get notes from the NC, as opposed to the MEC? I suppose the NC is subject to the same games the MEC is subject to, so I would say I probably don't want to hear different opinions. But I would like to have a single document put out by the NC showing the logic that led them where they ended up, so I could second-guess their work on my own terms. I would definitely like some feedback on how this compares to the polling, along the simple lines Ferd suggested.
Originally Posted by Scoop
First of all, I disagree with your premise - a PRO vs. CON paper does not necessarily expose differences within. But going along with your scenario, if the vote is 10-4 (hypothetical) to forward to membership for approval don't you want to hear why the 4 voted no? Conversely the vote can be uananimous to forward, but this does not mean every Rep likes everything about it.
I want to hear how my reps voted, and I don't need it in writing. Why do I care how a rep that doesn't work for me feels?
Every watch soccer? You know how a defensive team can suddenly pullback to create an off-side? Some reps live for the politics, and they live for that stuff. The moment a vote is up, a vote they know will pass/must pass, they'll tally up the totals, then make it a point to be the (not so) loyal opposition.
I don't want to play along with that game.
By definition, if the NC turns it over to the MEC, it's the MEC's job to decide. The NC should present it, and not baby-sit the MEC. When the MEC decides to pass to us, the decision becomes ours. Any input from the reps at that point becomes either a sell job, or an attempt to influence me the other way.
Either one is unsat.
I agree the internet and this forum will serve a sort of PRO vs. CON function, but I would prefer an official one via the negotiating committee. While there is some great information on this thread there is also a lot of chaff.
04-25-2012, 11:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by shiznit
I can do that right now and save the effort later....
In any section where the TA didn't live up to the polling data you can insert one of the following two answers:
1) Because the NC distributed that provisions' improvement cost/value elsewhere.
OR
2) Because the company said no, and the NC had no leverage to force the issue.
In any section where the TA didn't live up to the polling data you can insert one of the following two answers:
1) Because the NC distributed that provisions' improvement cost/value elsewhere.
OR
2) Because the company said no, and the NC had no leverage to force the issue.
I object to the noise and interference, pro, or against. If people want more insight, I think it would be helpful to get feedback from the NC on where they got, relative to our objective, and why. That seems like pertinent input.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
