Purple Drank

Witnessing Carl dismantling the naysayers, operatives, and hacks who pop out of the woodwork--Tool, Rod, etc--at contract time is truly gratifiying.

Thanks for speaking up for us, Carl!

DeadHead

Hmmmmmm...

Funny you say that because my rep assures me that PS reduction isn't being discussed by anyone. Furthermore, the company didn't even whisper a mention of it when openers were exchanged.

So if what you say is true, then my reps are going to have ALOT of explaining to do.

Reducing exposure to PS, you might want to double check your talking point. I believe we are using At-Risk Compensation to rationalize concessions this week.

GogglesPisano

Any reduction in PS will be voted down. People have become accustomed to it. No amount of ALPA-speak or fuzzy math will change this.

TenYearsGone

Serious question:

There are a lot of guys that I agree with, like TIMBO, JERRY, CARL, GZ##,others on the other forum like Sol, Phil etc).

I would love to see these men take over DALPA and do their thing. How can we nominate or beg these men to run?

TEN

Purple Drank

Agree wholeheartedly. It would be tricky. And could you imagine the flack they would take from the entrenched bureaucracy. I believe one or more of these guys have run before unsuccessfully. I suspect if another **** sandwich is sent to us, it would favor their elections.

Absolutley no doubt the pilot group would benefit tremendously with those guys on the MEC.

Timbo, Carl, Jerry, Phil...what say you?

And how about you, Ten? You are an even-keeled guy and you value all viewpoits. Would love to see you as a rep.

Hawaii50

I take back the good discussion comment. Pretty much just a big ****ing contest here between the usual suspects.

Bananie

I don't have any experience with the NMB but you sound like you do have some experience. I see a fault in your statements because if we tell the NMB that profit sharing doesn't have any quantifiable value, won't they just tell us that we should get rid of it all? To me, I would want to place some value on it so we can keep all/some of it.

Carl Spackler

I could never work with Timbo. Every time he's around, the daughters get pregnant and the kegs are empty. I'm sensing a pattern here.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Great question. Neither side in this Section 6 could place a dollar cost on future profit sharing without just wild guessing. Neither side would want to set the precedent in front of the NMB of proffering (or accepting) a complete wild a$$ guess on any item. Since the profit sharing calculation methodology is part of our current contract, management would have to make the demand that the formulation change. At that point, we could simply say no. If that ended up being the final straw in the Section 6 process, the NMB would step in and ask for the costing data of the company's demand. That costing data could not be provided for future contract years, thus the company could make no claim that our refusal to accept would unduly harm them financially...especially since by definition, profit sharing only applies during corporate success. If the company continued to press for an item that can't be future costed, they would run the strong risk of being found to be bargaining in bad faith by the NMB. Nobody wants that name tag.

This is why it's an untenable position for management. Their only hope is to get us to voluntarily give it up. This is why we're seeing the multi-faceted drive to denigrate profit sharing in the eyes of pilots.

Carl

TenYearsGone

Maybe we should start a campaign and focus our energy on getting these fellows into office, a DALAPA office! Things might change for the better.

TEN