That just won't cut it. "I'm guessing" isn't good enough by a damn sight.

How is the fuzzy, undefined "as much as possible" better (in your view) than the clearly measurable set of outcomes that DAL 88 Driver advocates? :confused:

It is a pretty loose list. I used numbers because they were easier than bullets.

Of course I want the company to be more efficient. I don't want the company to be more efficient at my expense but I want them to be efficient.

Here's an example. I don't like going to Atlanta for training. If I didn't have to go as often I'd think that was pretty good. It also costs the company money to train me. If there was a way to train me less and pay me more I'd probably be in favor of that.

I don't really have specifics. Maybe the contract is as efficient as it can possibly be and we wouldn't be able to identify any areas the company might want to change. I think it would be good to identify company "wants" before they ask for them so we have a strategy to deal with them.

I didn't suggest helping the company make us more efficient. I suggested identifying what the company might want.

I don't know. I didn't say anything about entertaining concessions.

I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the history of the contract to answer this question.

I don't know the reps but I am familiar with people and more specifically pilots. I am not aware of any pilots who don't want "really good" outcomes from negotiations. Yeah, I think I can speak for them on this one.

That hasn't been my experience with the ALPA people I have encountered but you are entitled to your opinion.

Significantly better than what we currently have. I don't really know what "historic" means in the context of a 400+ page contract. I'm more familiar with the negotiating process than the specifics of the contract.

Got it. We'll put you down as favoring longer training freezes (a significant concession) to fund our improvements.

Here's another question for you: Why should we fund our own improvements when the company is making billions?

Alan Shore (a DALPA operative) also attempted to paint longer training freezes as a positive using that same (ridiculous) straw man argument. Apparently you two are the only guys on the property who think longer freezes will improve our QOL.

Again: why are we debating concessions? Why is DALPA entertaining the notion of concessions?



I think this bears repeating, as it unmasks Oberon as a proponent of self-funded improvements (see also: "cost neutral")

That is unfortunate.

Luckily for us, Mike Donatelli knows what "historic" means. After all, he promised us an "historic" contract on C15.

If you can't define "historic," perhaps you can define "really good," since you used the term here:

I don't know how you could know what was possible until you start the process. You need to prepare for the process but negotiations are dynamic. Opportunities come and go. The objective in modern airline negotiations are to keep the process going. There are a lot of examples of pilot groups who were not able to keep the process going and they generally haven't fared well. I'm not saying we need to give in to the company. If the company stonewalls and we keep negotiating we will be closer to self help sooner than if we are deemed to be negotiating in bad faith.

You can set a finite objective and stick with it. You might get exactly what you want. Or you might set at a level that stalls negotiations in which case you get nothing.

You do know that I'm an internet message board poster and have nothing to do with negotiations? "Guessing" is all I can do.

There are other ways to monetize training. What if you were given an hourly override for not going to training when you were eligible to bid to another airplane? That would be pretty good wouldn't it?

We shouldn't. I didn't say we should. You made that up.

I'm not advocating anything. I mentioned moving training costs to our pockets as an example of an inefficiency in the contract. You made the leap that I was advocating longer training freezes.

We are not debating concessions; you are accusing me of debating concessions.

That's a pretty big leap. I'm advocating doing the research necessary to be prepared for the process. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's good because he is the MEC chairman and I am an internet message board poster.

I feel a little gross after typing that.:D

I already did in the sentence directly before the sentence you quoted. Here it is again.

concession tag-teaming...

P.S.
Oberon: You started here on March 3rd, and you are still on probation. You've been to Delta training in Atlanta exactly once, and you already "don't like going to Atlanta for training" and think it would be good if you didn't have to go "as often."

For real?

Your credibility is officially in the ****ter.

You edited before I could quote you. You had written that I am a "DALPA operative" (whatever that means). My total interaction with DALPA was attending the new hire dinner and an email exchange about banking hours.

Should I expect to be called a DALPA operative every time we disagree?