Don't mean to speak for DAL88, but I think part of the problem here is that I highly suspect that we're not even asking. Our union administration is very concerned about asking for too much. I base that on a number of admins who spoke very passionately against the whole concept of restoration. My concerns worsened when I asked my reps when our opener would be released for us to read and they said it would be released at some point during negotiations. They later said that the MEC admins decided that the opener would never be released...ever. Of course, it's never been released. Therefore we have no idea what "we" were/are even asking for.

Carl

 

That is exactly right.

Carl

 

Agree with everything here, but what's in bold needs a bit more discussion. While you are correct, understand that the Railway Labor Act prohibits any side negotiating for the benefit or detriment of another employee group. The NMB would quickly slap the company down if they ever attempted to say they couldn't agree to this or that because then they'd have to give it to other employees. Anyone who uses this argument as a reason for lowered expectations either doesn't understand the RLA, or they're purposely using it as a scare tactic.

Carl

 

I have commented on it several times. My exact quote is that "it is the elephant in the room."

The "affordable" care act is going to be a big player going forward. Hopefully, the DC circuit court ruling will be the one that prevails... but time will tell.

 

C2015, its coming soon. What is the value of a 15% (future 16-17% maybe?) DC do to a "restoration" equation... I'd like to hear no holds barred thoughts. I find it a very interesting topic because of the extremely different situations and perspectives that come from the seniority/age/merger spectrum.

For a pilot hired in the 07-present, Johnso/me/ACL it's probably way better than the old DB/nonqual plans.

For the 98-2002 hires, like Check and Gloopy is it marginally better depending on age, or still worse?

For 91-97 like DAL88 etc. (and gzsg?) it probably isn't even close enough or "just barely almost" when claim/note/equity/frozen/PBGC are factored in and you are a near perfect investor??

For 88-91 guys (Denny, Carl) is there not enough time to fix it no matter what the 401k percentage?

How do we quantify that, and since it will vary wildly depending on demographic what is the value towards a stance of "restoration"?

 

As I understand it, the Company is guilty as charged, and on a regular basis. Are you saying this is something that is prohibited by the RLA? Does that apply equally to a group of at-will employees such as our FAs?

 

I've heard similar intimations in certain circles. There is a general fear, not totally unfounded IMO, that asking for "too much" (whatever that is) will simply drive the other side from the table. The example often used is that of APA, who asked for a 50% pay increase and got zero response from AMR until they became more "reasonable."

The issue then becomes one of whether our view of what is reasonable is too low.

We saw the C2012 opener, did we not?

 

Sorry. I was speaking of the MEC as a body. The consensus of that body was that the TA merited approval and membership ratification. As to the specific reason(s) for that, I have to think that every deal is measured by whether it is the best that can be achieved today and whether taking today's deal is better than whatever may come tomorrow.

Call it the Plan B Boogeyman, admin scare tactics, or whatever, it's all the same thing -- what are we likely to get tomorrow if we turn down this deal today?

True, and that can't happen again.

Well, they changed MEC Chairmen, but kept the NC Chairman and one of the other three.

 

Actually, I'm not that big a fan, and I'm sorry that I sometimes come across that way. I have very strong opinions of my own, and I have no issues expressing them to my reps, whether we agree or disagree. My testiness comes when guys make judgments based on incorrect facts, or worse, when they base those judgments on statements of fact of which they have zero personal knowledge.

I am a big fan of the clout and logistical support that being part of a national union gives us, while being wary of there being undue influence from the top down. It is unfortunate that there are some who cannot seems to stand open debate on issues, and I believe that we must all continue to allow differing opinions and thoughts to thrive. The more out-of-the-box thinking we can do, the better off we'll be.

With all due respect, I think we both accept and acknowledge that we must personally operate with little personal knowledge and that we both listen to what we hear, find what evidence we can, and connect dots. I believe we both have the right to believe where we see the clear evidence pointing, even if our perspectives and backgrounds steer those beliefs in opposite directions. You seem to have an instinctive distrust of our reps until they're proven right, while I am more inclined to believe them until they're proven wrong.

Neither of us is totally right or wrong in this. In fact, I believe that the best answer for the pilot group may lie squarely in the middle, where guys examine the evidence together dispassionately and with as few presumptions as possible and come up with a consensus conclusion.

 

+1...............