|
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 1177467)
DEEP BREATH BOYS:
Fly the airplane Silence the bell Identify the emergency Read the checklist DO NOT HURRY Nwa guys know this, for our Delta Bro's that is the only memory items we had. Keep it simple and be methodical. We control the outcome here and there is no reason to panic. Let's wait to see what they come up with and methodically break it down. This is not a vote on a ch11 contract or face a 1113 term sheet from a judge. Our company is doing very well, thanks in no part to our contributions. We don't HAVE to have a contract now. Would it be nice? Of course, but only if it has major improvements in scope and compensation and solid improvements in other areas. Have faith in your reps, more importantly the Neg. team and yourselves. We have more ways to communicate now than any other time in history and that is what will make a difference this time. Lots of really smart guys on here(excluding yours truly) will analyze, disect and breakdown the TA(if there is one). If it does not address our needs as a group you vote no. I am sure that one of the really smart guys on here(ftb, bar, I am nominating y'all for this) can and will post a very simple breakdown in a table format that we can print up. We can take this on the line and educate the less involved/in tune pilots if there is a solid reason to vote no. Those of us on here are fairly in tune with what's going on but we are not the majority. Most just don't have time or care. It is up to us to provide a non emotional response on why turning down a raise today will be to our benefit tomorrow. A heated, emotional response WILL NOT convince the fence sitters that blindly trust ALPA. So relax, be ready and have a good weekend... |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1177489)
My thesis: The purpose of O'Malley's letter is to begin the process of getting us to accept the idea of more 76 seat jets. That is a 100% guarantee. There is no possibility that our TA will keep the 76 seat limit where it is or reduce it. No possibility. It will also contain a provision that demands a reduction in those new 76 seat aircraft if mainline aircraft disappear.
My prediction of the LEC reps' votes: The LEC reps will ratify it and send it on to the members by a small majority. My prediction of the members' votes: The members vote it in by a small majority. The result: Company brings on more mainline aircraft, purchases more 76 seaters and hires lots of pilots. The older mainline aircraft then start to disappear due to age and other reasons. The new 76 seaters DO NOT go away. DALPA comes to us and says: "Look guys, the company spent billions on those 76 seaters. If we force them to park these new aircraft, it will damage the company and hurt our ability to make gains in the next contract. We're in the right, and will probably win in arbitration...but you can never be sure. Let's keep the company profitable and go after them big time with our next negotiations." The result: DALPA fears members will scuttle the plan and signs off on an LOA without MEMRAT to allow parking of the older mainline aircraft while keeping the additional 76 seaters. Company wins chess match, while we continue to play checkers. The one way to stop this scenario from playing out: vote NO on any TA that allows the company even ONE more 76 seat jet. Carl key points, 100% agreed! |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1177489)
My thesis: The purpose of O'Malley's letter is to begin the process of getting us to accept the idea of more 76 seat jets. That is a 100% guarantee. There is no possibility that our TA will keep the 76 seat limit where it is or reduce it. No possibility. It will also contain a provision that demands a reduction in those new 76 seat aircraft if mainline aircraft disappear.
My prediction of the LEC reps' votes: The LEC reps will ratify it and send it on to the members by a small majority. My prediction of the members' votes: The members vote it in by a small majority. The result: Company brings on more mainline aircraft, purchases more 76 seaters and hires lots of pilots. The older mainline aircraft then start to disappear due to age and other reasons. The new 76 seaters DO NOT go away. DALPA comes to us and says: "Look guys, the company spent billions on those 76 seaters. If we force them to park these new aircraft, it will damage the company and hurt our ability to make gains in the next contract. We're in the right, and will probably win in arbitration...but you can never be sure. Let's keep the company profitable and go after them big time with our next negotiations." The result: DALPA fears members will scuttle the plan and signs off on an LOA without MEMRAT to allow parking of the older mainline aircraft while keeping the additional 76 seaters. Company wins chess match, while we continue to play checkers. The one way to stop this scenario from playing out: vote NO on any TA that allows the company even ONE more 76 seat jet. Carl Great post, and scary post. Well stated. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1177429)
For those that are interpreting T.O.'s latest letter as a scope relief, please, take all the energy you are wasting here blabbering and write your Rep. All this assumption is ridiculous. Quit wasting your energy here, and voice it to someone who can pass it on to our Negotiating Committee.
If a TA gets to this pilot group it will get voted in, no matter how bad it is too all of us on APC. We can not let a TA get to the pilots unless it covers All of our concerns completely. |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1177495)
Some of these votes in the past...everybody "voted no" and it passed.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1177489)
My thesis: The purpose of O'Malley's letter is to begin the process of getting us to accept the idea of more 76 seat jets. That is a 100% guarantee. There is no possibility that our TA will keep the 76 seat limit where it is or reduce it. No possibility. It will also contain a provision that demands a reduction in those new 76 seat aircraft if mainline aircraft disappear.
My prediction of the LEC reps' votes: The LEC reps will ratify it and send it on to the members by a small majority. My prediction of the members' votes: The members vote it in by a small majority. The result: Company brings on more mainline aircraft, purchases more 76 seaters and hires lots of pilots. The older mainline aircraft then start to disappear due to age and other reasons. The new 76 seaters DO NOT go away. DALPA comes to us and says: "Look guys, the company spent billions on those 76 seaters. If we force them to park these new aircraft, it will damage the company and hurt our ability to make gains in the next contract. We're in the right, and will probably win in arbitration...but you can never be sure. Let's keep the company profitable and go after them big time with our next negotiations." The result: DALPA fears members will scuttle the plan and signs off on an LOA without MEMRAT to allow parking of the older mainline aircraft while keeping the additional 76 seaters. Company wins chess match, while we continue to play checkers. The one way to stop this scenario from playing out: vote NO on any TA that allows the company even ONE more 76 seat jet. Carl Get the pilots to give up 76 seater scope language in exchange for:
Then merge with Alaska because you know AMR/LCC are merging, kick the unwanted CRJ-200s out of DCI, make a new Alaska out of Hawaiian and restore the JVs back to what they were supposed to be while taking those free unwanted 717s from SWA and Boeing after making considerable gains by toying with them over this Airbus offer. |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1177495)
OK donning my tin foil conspiracy cap for this but it is an honest question. Who tallies the votes on these contracts? Is there an independent real time audit to make sure there is no "tom foolry" if you know what I mean? Can we get some non ALPA contract selling guys in to verify the numbers when this does come to a vote? Some of these votes in the past...everybody "voted no" and it passed. I hate to ask this but for piece of mind how does the process work? How can we "trust but VERIFY"?
BallotPoint Election Services - Building a wall of integrity around your union elections |
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 1177506)
That always happens, even when the vote-counting is honest. The reason is that many people, wanting to avoid a fight or reluctant to admit a mistake, lie about how they voted. It happens after every Presidential election too. :rolleyes:
After POS 96 passed membership ratification, I was livid. I was on the Pilot to Pilot committee then and had been doing lots of Lounge Visits, trying to tell pilots about all the Crap that was in there. Everyone said they were going to vote NO...but it passed, about 70-30. I called the DALPA office to scream at someone, John Malone (then the DFW F/O LEC rep) happend to be the poor bast..d that answered the phone that day. After I got through 'venting' he said he agreed with me, it's a POS, and personally he had voted NO to it as well, but he said his home phone had been ringing off the hook, prior to the LEC ratification vote, with guys saying things like, "You Guys HAVE TO approve this! I just bought a new house (or car, or boat, or what have you) and I can't afford to go out on strike." He said the "Please don't make us go on strike" calls were three times as many, as the "This thing sucks, vote it down!" calls. In the end, when I said, "How can guys be so friggn' clueless??" he said, "What did you think that rocking chair was for?" In the many years since then, after coming to Mecca (when DL closed all the smaller bases, and we all got sent to ATL) I have come to realize, it's a circular argument. When I ask the MEC members, "How in the Heck did this thing get passed??" They say, "We didn't have the support of the pilots to turn it down." And when I ask pilots I fly with, "Well, if you think it sucks, why did you vote Yes for it??" They always say, "Because the MEC told us to..." I'll tell you NW guys one thing, when the merger was announced, one of the most often heard comments in the DL South cockpits was, "Finally, we can get some guys with some stones, and vote NO for these POS contracts!" But have no doubt, anything the MEC ratifies is going to pass the membership, due to the "The MEC told me to" effect. So if you want this thing 'fixed', it has to be done -before- the MEC ratifies it. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1177400)
Again Nu's right. A letter like that means the progress has been significant and we are nearing a "possible" conclusion. Scope and Pay are always last and take the longest. I do not think that pay has been discussed, and scope is not done. Your input to your reps is needed. Let them know what you will not stand for.
Beware the DALPA mind tricks. The good news is that they only work on the weak minded. Nu |
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 1177467)
DEEP BREATH BOYS:
Fly the airplane Silence the bell Identify the emergency Read the checklist DO NOT HURRY |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:21 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands