Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1729495)

There are so many ways to look at the gains we deserve in C2015.

IMO another way to gauge success is for us to increase our pay $50,000 per pilot date of signing and work 2 days less per month. Pay and quality of life.

We certainly took unnecessary hits to our pay, pension and quality of life. There is no excuse in this environment to not make these gains as a minimum for a yes vote.

This is all assuming no change in profit sharing.

The results so far on the DPA survey show 98% of our pilots want to keep profit sharing the same or increase it.

92% do not want to exchange profit sharing for hourly increases.

1235 responding and counting.

Jerry

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1729505)

I have a question because I don't know. Does the DPA survey allow you to take it twice or more and continue to count respondents. Because frankly I'm impressed if 10% of the group took the survey???I haven't taken it.

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 Oberon (Post 1729539)

Our negotiators have all the tools they need to play the game.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1729106)

Excellent post, gloopy! Sadly, I don't think DALPA will do this because it is not their objective. They gave up (without asking us :eek:) on significantly restoring our profession and our careers about 10 years ago. I've seen nothing from them over the past 10 years to indicate anything other than a mentality that accepts the unreasonable concessions before and during bankruptcy as a reset and only traditionally "reasonable" improvements to that new baseline.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1729543)

They had "all the tools" they needed in C12, too. And they got their asses handed to them.
They had "all the tools" they needed for the 117 LOA. And they gave us CDOs.

It takes more than infrastructure to "win" this "game."

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1729552)

What would you have done differently during C2012 and what do you think the result would have been?

As an interested outsider at the time it looked like a pretty good deal given the state of the economy, the short duration and the fact that it was done early. I thought it would pass with 60-65% of the vote which turned out to be pretty accurate. Not that my prediction (which I'm telling you after the fact:D) means anything.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1729416)

Working to rule is a illegal job action. Ask any 49er still around or the judge who issued a injunction. With the changes in the courts the last 15 years for DALPA to even drop a hint of that could result in enormous fines. The most recent work to rule campaign was USAIR. Might want to check how it worked for them.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1729509)

I am attempting to find some common ground to build on. Can we all agree (for starters) that a TA with any productivity or QOL concessions is a "no" vote?