![]() |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1719767)
I just realized that the DALPA operatives here have already dropped all pretense of obtaining a "home run" contract.
All of their posts here have been about why we must provide concessions--making the company's case, arguing why we need to grant relief. None of the DALPA operatives are even attempting to rally us towards massive improvements. Why do we put up with this? |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1719599)
Urantia? :D
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1719767)
I just realized that the DALPA operatives here have already dropped all pretense of obtaining a "home run" contract.
All of their posts here have been about why we must provide concessions--making the company's case, arguing why we need to grant relief. None of the DALPA operatives are even attempting to rally us towards massive improvements. Why do we put up with this? The new official talking point is no 2004 rates date of signing. Same DALPA stuff, different DALPA day. These guys would think we need concessions if Delta made a $1 trillion dollar profit. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1720138)
The new official talking point is no 2004 rates date of signing.
Same DALPA stuff, different DALPA day. These guys would think we need concessions if Delta made a $1 trillion dollar profit. |
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1719879)
What are you talking about? .
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1720196)
Please provide an example of a Dalpa operative here building trust, finding common ground, and rallying us to achieve massive gains--why isn't "restoration" our opener?--in what could be the best negotiating environment we'll ever see. One example of leadership. Just one will do.
I can easily be a single issue voter...if there are concessions, I'll vote no. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1720203)
I see what you are saying. There are a group which are often referred to as DALPA operatives who seem to take the anti-argument whenever there's a post from someone who they probably label as a (defunct alternate representation attempt) operative...even to the detriment of any gain or constructive conversation about possible gains.
I can easily be a single issue voter...if there are concessions, I'll vote no. I would honestly be happy with a wide smattering of small improvements. But not willing to deal with any concessions. Before anyone says "it's negotiations", I get that. This is the most favorable negotiating environment I am likely to see in my lifetime. If ALPA can't hit this slow-pitch softball, we are F'd. Please don't make anything like sick leave or profit sharing worse. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1720196)
Please provide an example of a Dalpa operative here building trust, finding common ground, and rallying us to achieve massive gains--why isn't "restoration" our opener?--in what could be the best negotiating environment we'll ever see. One example of leadership. Just one will do.
Can you provide an example of a "DALPA operative" posting about "why we must provide concessions"? You made a claim, back it up. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1719778)
I just realized that my ignore list is too short.
|
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1720138)
The new official talking point is no 2004 rates date of signing.
. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:33 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands