Which one?

 

I do not label everyone I disagree with here. Only the very small percentage who I know for certain.

See above. I completely disagree.

It's neither. It adds good background and foundation for people to decide. Regarding an attempt to silence, I've done just the opposite with people I disagree with.

But I've definitely experienced attempts at silencing here. I got a PM once that had the name of a 744A in the subject line. The PM said: "We know who you really are Carl." I sent it to a mod here. I later found out it was from the then chairman of Council 44. I've had PM's that hoped I contracted cancer and die. I've had people say they'd refuse me the Jumpseat if I didn't shut up. Those are silencing attempts. I've had reps that have been told by Council 44 reps that their opposing opinions were divisive and damaging to MEC unity unless there was a unanimous opinion. Those are attempts at silencing. Stating the airline position and union status of a member is not.

Carl

 

You have your opinion as to what is a reasonable position. Others have different points of view. To believe that someone who disagrees with yours must have an ulterior motive is tantamount to believing that your opinion must be correct and everyone else is wrong.

Carl complains about some being accused of disunity inside the "DALPA echo chamber" when they disagree with another's position. The labelling that you suggest in your post is no different.

 

Sailingfun,

Please tell me how any furlough protection is better now or then. I thought we had pretty good furlough protection back then. It took the company declaring FM to furlough then they continued at every opportunity to change what we had in the contract to fly the airline with less pilots. If you remember something different please throw it in. We had (in C2k):

Furlough protection for everyone on property as of date of signing
If the company furloughed they had to give a certain amount of notice and the cap had to be reduced, for 3 months I believe, to a cetain level before they could be furloughed. Once we had people on furlough we had a 75 hour cap.

Reality turned out to be a little worse. Company declares FM, company furloughs on their timeline, company asks for relief from 75 hour cap and gets it, greenslips are flowing like a river (but hey it counts against the manning formula) when company triggers the numbers that required them to recall they do it at a trickle not the historic training capacity levels.

Long story short, and only my opinion, but furlough protection is a waste of negotiating capital. If the company needs to furlough pilots they will find a way.

 

And that's fine. I'm just saying how it looks to me.

Agreed. And stuff like that is completely unconscionable. Those pilots should be ashamed of themselves. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot debate issues openly and agree to disagree with each other without resorting to name calling and/or accusations of ulterior motives when one cannot convince the other.

That's playground bully stuff.

 

Good question. I have no idea.

 

Conventional no furlough provisions are a waste of negotiating capital. It was Moak who came up with the concept of layering in small economic penalties in multiple sections of the contract if pilots are on furlough. That concept worked exactly as planned after the 08 meltdown. The company was forced to carry 800 unneeded pilots because the overall cost to furlough was to high. Many of those pilots are posters here.

 

Not to pick on you, but do you think that these provisions would fair any better in an FM declaration event? History has shown the company will do what it will and then leave it up to the arbitrator to sort it out. I don't think anything would change. There are no punitive penalties applied so they would just have to go back into compliance but if the arbitration comes back in their favor then they have won big.

 

Most of those items are not subject to FM and are not grey areas subject to interpretation. The proof is they worked when needed. In addition the company would have to challenge each item separately.

 

Sorry, Alan, but I think any position that advocates our profession should be compensated at levels dramatically below what was established in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's is a position that works against the best interests of the pilot group. That seems pretty self evident.

And I think what I articulated earlier is a VERY reasonable and generous position: Accept my $1 million contribution to Delta's recovery. I'll write it off as "water under bridge." How many companies wouldn't be thrilled to have a group of employees willing to write off $1 million EACH as a contribution to help the company get through a rough spot?

But now that the crisis is over and things are arguably better for our company and industry than they've ever been before, let's just make our compensation right going forward. What's stopping you from supporting that?