|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1186119)
As usual, by being against unity, ALPA has no coherent strategy and is rife with internal conflicts as it tries to divide and allocate a fixed amount of resources.
The problem is exacerbated by ALPA not being internally forthright and trying to tell itself "this is not a scope sale" when in reality the only reason the company is eager for a deal is their need to re-fleet the airline with airplanes that are outsourced. I am beginning to understand D-ALPA as a brilliant machine at executing tactical campaigns, but completely lacking clear strategic objectives. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1186118)
Yeah... Horshack is gonna hang out on an anonymous rumor board. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1186122)
I have a hard time believing that this is the only reason the company is "eager." If it is, that makes my vote quite simple.
Before you and ACL say "merger" that would be putting the cart in front of the horse. Usually a new contract is a form of inducement for a process agreement. Management is not going to do a deal just to have to do a deal again once they need labor peace. Management is not eager to pay us more money. They want something else. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1186088)
The facts are that everything that has been negotiated is cost-neutral or better to the company. The company has not agreed to one big money change as far as I know.
|
Originally Posted by Pro Fessional
(Post 1186128)
Are you serious? All I have for "facts" are some deliberately vague bullet points. Please share your facts with me so I can also make up my mind on how I will vote now.
Sincere question. Have you read the negotiators notepad? To sum up; a guy can earn more by flying more block hours. Work rule concessions will facilitate this, but the rub is that premium pay will all but vanish and credit will be reduced. It reminds me a lot of the old regional airline days when I called my father to tell him about my 98 hour month and he responded, "yeah, but how much of that is credit ?" The response, "what's credit? That's 98 hours of block time." :eek: The thing is, with the level of our outsourcing and various fleet types our planners don't have the flexibility to build efficient schedules with that kind of block (resulting in a lot of the credit we have now). I've started trying to build schedules based on the new rules and the results are pretty brutal. At the regionals it was "fly until you puke" or in other terms, fly until you just could not take it any more and then call in sick to get some clean clothes and try to talk your wife (ie single mom) into not running away to her parents house. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1186126)
Name one other reason the Company might desire a modification of our current contract.
Before you and ACL say "merger" that would be putting the cart in front of the horse. Usually a new contract is a form of inducement for a process agreement. Management is not going to do a deal just to have to do a deal again once they need labor peace. Management is not eager to pay us more money. They want something else. I'm not saying that re-fleeting isn't A reason, just not the only reason. There are numerous possible reasons. Since I don't work in every department in DAL and don't have ties to Goldman, I don't know all the opportunities the company sees forming on the horizon. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1186134)
Bar;
I'm not saying that re-fleeting isn't A reason, just not the only reason. There are numerous possible reasons. Since I don't work in every department in DAL and don't have ties to Goldman, I don't know all the opportunities the company sees forming on the horizon. Just think it through. What opportunities would be stopped by anything our current contract? Even merger and acquisition activity hinges around Section 1 (scope). In every scenario, management knows what it wants to do. So, it knows where to put the traps because it knows where the path leads. Given this truth, it is in management's favor because of management's superior information. On the other side of the table we have a group with individualistic interests trying to grab the high ground. Frankly it seems a little like the lead up to Gettysburg. IMHO we are fine under our current agreement. Force management to buy airplanes and operate them here, even if it costs the company some money. Make them play their hand. Bide our time until we have at least passed our strike authorization vote. The closer we get to self help, the more real leverage we have. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1186123)
It twas a joke.
Yeah I know... |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1186032)
How about "tune in Tokyo" as a secret pre-handshake validation gesture?
|
Originally Posted by tripled
(Post 1186157)
Heh. I was thinking the same thing. Half a "tune-in" could be subtle enough that only the trained eye would notice. Plus, the current gesture may be mis-construed: not every dude would think of gently lifting underboob. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Protect essential |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands