Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1772604)

Then what about the language that IS in there sailingfun? Why would our negotiators agree to a process of only complying every other year? Why allow management to be heavily out of compliance one year, yet a following year's compliance means you've cured the previous year's non-compliance? Why not language that says the following year's percentages must be reversed in our favor to the same magnitude of the previous year's non-compliance? Instead, we specifically AGREE to it as long as they comply in the following year. Who would agree to that sailingfun? Will you?

Carl

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1772572)

With a 54% participation it would seem my reps would not know..... But even putting this aside it is my understanding the NC does/has not released the results of the survey so how would my reps know?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1772601)

No sailingfun, the teeth is in the language. This language should have the ability to continue the JV based on the monthly maintenance of the agreed to percentages. No percentages, the JV must immediately end. If the company continues it anyway, that's not a grievance, that's a change to the status quo and all that brings.

At the very least, it would make for an easy win on an expedited grievance...not for monetary penalty, but the operational ending of a job killer. Of course none of that is possible when our negotiators PURPOSELY avoid that protective language in favor of pleasing our management partners.



You're making those numbers up entirely. You have no idea.



See above.



That's when you walk away from negotiations then. That is unless you're one of these hopelessly overmatched dupes on our side. Then you just do what you're told...then call it negotiations.



Yes. Operate in strict compliance with our Scope. But the fact you even ask this question betrays the fact that you can never find any reason to EVER deny a management request...for all the reasons you list above. It'd be OK if it was just you, but we have far too many pilots here who share your level of...strength. :rolleyes:

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1772482)

No you don't Karnak. You want what's best for our management partners because you're all in on the Moak "trickle down" theory.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1772482)

Even ALPA knows their trickle down theory would be rejected by the membership.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1772482)

You have no idea what's acceptable to most Delta pilots this time. But the arrogance is typical of a member of the MEC administration.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1772664)

The reps were fully briefed on the survey.

""This week during the Special MEC meeting in Atlanta, the Negotiating Committee briefed the Delta MEC extensively on the results of the C2015 Delta Pilot Survey""

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1772663)

I suspect Carl because it would make no economic sense to ramp the schedule up and down each year.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1772664)

The reps were fully briefed on the survey.

""This week during the Special MEC meeting in Atlanta, the Negotiating Committee briefed the Delta MEC extensively on the results of the C2015 Delta Pilot Survey""

Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1772681)

Hail the Boogeyman! If you're in the minority on decisions made by pilots, create a vast conspiracy controlled by Dr. Evil.

Easier to blame Moak then to own your perspective's place in the world.



I think ALPA knows your theory is something you invented to rationalize why you consistently find your views in the minority.



What's acceptable to Delta pilots is known by my reps. And your reps. The administration has no vote. Our reps do. And after them, we do. If history repeats itself, you will not find their product acceptable. A clear majority of Delta pilots will disagree with you. You will then resurrect the Boogeyman. Same ol' - same ol'.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1772475)

Nothing at all confidential about general statements on how the survey turned out. Again talk to your reps.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1772827)

Sailing

Can you expound on that?

You mean ballparks on each of the big issues?

I believe any characterization would be a violation of the confidentiality agreement.

If not, please post for us. My reps said they cannot give any characterization at all.

Jerry