Agreed.

I'm not sure that's true. With my limited knowledge of Section 1 of our contract, I understand that we had little to no protection against international codesharing in the past, let alone these new-fangled "Joint Ventures." Only in the past several iterations has the contract added limitations to such arrangements, with at least a requirement to attempt negotiating a production balance, etc.

Could be wrong here.

Nor did it satisfy what I put in my survey, yet I was part of the 62%. The reason was that, in completing my survey, I was assuming a more traditional timeline with a TA some months after the amendable date (or later). Given the early completion date and the corresponding earlier-than-expected pay increases, we wound up about 14% higher a year after the amendable date than the JCBA (net of profit sharing reduction).

That, in addition to the other goodies, e.g., vacation and CQ training pay, reserve guarantee, etc., to put me over the top.

That is what I understand to have been the case.

Back to the same old argument from you. Let's at least debate the issues from a factual standpoint, and not from a standpoint of declaring things to be true of which we have no personal knowledge.

Or is your intent something other than to have an honest and open debate?

At least you're now recognizing the possibility that there may actually have been some amount of real negotiations. I think we're getting somewhere!! :p

Apparently, it was the MEC's belief in the end, as they voted to approve the TA. Or are you saying that ever voting down a TA brought forth with recommend by the NC is a no-win situation?

Actually, two out of the four are back -- MC and HK. Neither PO nor DV ran this time around, so it would be speculation at best as to whether either would have been re-elected.

In my previous post, I ask you the same question. Let's all stick to what we personally know and at least accurately ID those of our statements that reflect our opinion, belief, or suspicions. A discussion from that perspective, IMO, will give us the most legitimate and honest debate.

You voted yes. I sincerely hope you learned a lesson or have had some first hand experiences to make you regret that decision. If you have no regrets or cannot see the mistake then it is indicative of a cultural and educational issue we have at this particular airline. What many have realized is that early contract may likely turn into a 4 to 6 year contract as the company stonewalls our restoration of QOL. Our vacation and CQ training pay is hardly anything to brag about, are you really serious about that pushing you over the top? The fact we are working 5-6 more days a month than SWA to match their average line credit is embarrassing. I am embarrassed we passed C2012.

As we get pushed harder and harder, where is ALPA safety? Where is the representation when we have 14 hour days, 10:00 overnights followed by another 11-13 hour duty day into a hotel that our own hotel commitee rejects? A requirement spelled out in the PWA. The answer is the company does not respect us, they have done an impressive job of destroying what profession existed and convincing our own union we are just employees.

I agree. And then they made it even worse when Delta came out of bankruptcy and they acted like we had accepted bankruptcy level compensation as some kind of new standard with no expectation of restoration.

That even continues to this day... with Delta making literally BILLIONS in profits. Ask any of the "leadership" in DALPA if we have an objective for restoration. Crickets. They're more worried about stepping on RA's or EB's toes. UNSAT.

And his replacement amplified the mistake by ushering in even more concessions and setting us on a course that essentially takes restoration off the table.

This ^^^^^^^^^! People like talk about TVM but what about TV of life? Quality of life is my biggest priority and I feel that being chipped away with every new rule, loa, contract, or FAR. I am a DALPA supporter but i sometimes question what their priority and direction is. Yes, I engage my reps, do the call to actions, and pay into the pac. Problem is a lot of times talking to dalpa guy is like listening to a management mouth piece. Shout me down if you like but this perspective is not limited to me.

So there would have been no additional concessions to come through bankruptcy if JM had remained at the helm? He was good, but I think getting out from under the thumb of a judge during an 1113 unscathed is pretty lofty for anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Serious question, Alan. How would you answer the following question?

"Given the history of Delta pilot compensation, the concessions we took associated with Delta's bankruptcy, and the progress/improvements we've made since Delta emerged from bankruptcy, what should be our objective going forward?"

In my opinion, any progress we make should be measured against our objective. The actions we take, the communications we put out, and the tone we set should be consistent with our objective. If we set a tone and send a message that our objective is something much different from what it really is, then that is counterproductive.

Those are some of the reasons why I voted NO on C2012. I'd like to hear more about your reasons within the context of your expectations and your view of what our objective should be.