|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1728992)
What chart?
Or maybe someone can post it here. |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1728935)
I don't think I've ever called any of my fellow pilots "the enemy." Don't confuse me with anyone else.
Didn't mean to confuse you with Jerry's enemy comment. It wasn't meant to come across that way. What I am suggesting is that the same rationale used by DALPA to justify C2012 could be (most likely will be?) used again for C2015. Take a look at Lee Moak's comments in the Bloomberg/Business Week article. And then take a look at the lack of any retraction/clarification from Moak, or even any concern voiced by our DALPA leadership about this. I know when I emailed my reps about it, they actually SUPPORTED what he said! :eek: From what I've seen, you are a very vocal supporter of everything DALPA on this board. I do hope you meant what you said about your expectations for C2015. But based on your track record of posting here, I have my doubts that when it comes down to it you will do anything other than vote YES to whatever they come up with, no matter how weak it is. PLEASE prove me wrong. I would love that! I will do what the vast-majority of other pilots will do. When a TA eventually comes out, I will analyze it based on it's merits and my judgement of whether it's the best we can achieve given the environment/conditions present at that time. What I won't do is pre-set my decision (to NO or YES) 6 months to 5 years in advance. I reserve the right to change my mind multiple times as new information becomes available and conditions change. Anything else is irrational and IMO irresponsible. |
Originally Posted by tim123
(Post 1728943)
Not the enemy,but how can someone take you seriously when you say you want number 1 and 3,but did not vote to obtain those goals in the present contract?
As a mentioned a few posts ago, I STILL think C2012 was a good-enough, short-duration deal, that positioned us for where we are now in a profitable cycle. Did I like reducing profit sharing from 15 to 10? No. Did I accept it because I though the deal as a whole, including the monetization of that profit sharing, was overall "good enough?" Yes. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1729014)
I didn't see any chart on there other than the number of "members" propaganda. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1729000)
No.
The enemy is anyone who does not want our pilots to see the 2004 hourly rates plis inflarion chart. Where do we go from there? Let's further assume the head of the NMB flew to Atlanta to address the MEC and set up some ground rules and made the NMB's position known and 50% does not fit their reality. What next? |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1729010)
I see what you are saying on some level. We can't just go into the NMB and squeal "RESTORATION!" and point to a high water mark and say we will "shut 'er down!" unless we get it because we "deserve" it and expect anything other than getting parked by an activist NMB. I get that, really.
But there is a place for pointing it out. I'd actually advocate that we don't lead with it, but put the bait in a trap we know the management is going to step right into no matter what. We know they are going to play Bolshevik's advocate and say we can't have anything they can't afford to give to every single work group, ME-TOO!, blah blah blah. When they do that, especially with Section 3, and they will, we simply point out what work groups are below, at or above pre BK pay. Boom. #thatjusthappened There may even be a place, possibly in a well crafted opener, where we bring up high water mark pay, plus inflation since, and post the rates just for visualization. Then compare profits then and profits now, and then quickly "negotiate down" to around the high water mark rates plus a little extra, and suddenly we look much more reasonable. Then they say productivity, we say irrational fleet diversity is responsibile for any cost variation on our part, and not only is it unreasonable for us to be expected to pay for what is 100% their choice and desire, we actually, by their own admission, get a significant network/revenue benefit from the very thing that primarily causes it. Its all a big chess game about making your position look more "reasonable" while showing you can move to the middle a bit. Chest thumping from day one is an automatic loser. But there are ways to accomplish the same thing more effectively. Its all in the delivery. Exactly. Perfect! Everyone locked into the 4-8-3-3 forever mentality, really take a minute and soak Gloopy's post up. It's all about highlighting the reasonable and we definitely have the argument and numbers on our side. |
.................
|
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1729094)
It is not difficult.
It was mentioned in multiple major media outlets that a "certain type of peace" ;) is highly valued at this point of time. Figure it out. Art, backed up by math. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1729010)
I see what you are saying on some level. We can't just go into the NMB and squeal "RESTORATION!" and point to a high water mark and say we will "shut 'er down!" unless we get it because we "deserve" it and expect anything other than getting parked by an activist NMB. I get that, really.
But there is a place for pointing it out. I'd actually advocate that we don't lead with it, but put the bait in a trap we know the management is going to step right into no matter what. We know they are going to play Bolshevik's advocate and say we can't have anything they can't afford to give to every single work group, ME-TOO!, blah blah blah. When they do that, especially with Section 3, and they will, we simply point out what work groups are below, at or above pre BK pay. Boom. #thatjusthappened There may even be a place, possibly in a well crafted opener, where we bring up high water mark pay, plus inflation since, and post the rates just for visualization. Then compare profits then and profits now, and then quickly "negotiate down" to around the high water mark rates plus a little extra, and suddenly we look much more reasonable. Then they say productivity, we say irrational fleet diversity is responsibile for any cost variation on our part, and not only is it unreasonable for us to be expected to pay for what is 100% their choice and desire, we actually, by their own admission, get a significant network/revenue benefit from the very thing that primarily causes it. Its all a big chess game about making your position look more "reasonable" while showing you can move to the middle a bit. Chest thumping from day one is an automatic loser. But there are ways to accomplish the same thing more effectively. Its all in the delivery. |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1729094)
.................
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:04 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands