I hope you understand that the contract survey is used to decide what order to prioritize contract improvements. It's not really a tool to set dollar values. If used as such we would never reach a contract agreement that was not considered rogue. It's a pilot wish list that has to be tempered with reality.

 

Not anymore. You dummies thinking he's the cvg FO rep are wrong.

Similar name, though!

 

I don't know who's post you are responding to but it wasn't mine. I never said any of that. You make everything personal. I don't find that to be an effective debate tactic.

I don't believe the MEC was fooled, but I do think they were outmaneuvered. And I have a very high opinion of their intellect; which is why I am hopeful they will keep a much tighter leash on those few individuals in ALPA who have demonstrated a propensity to substitute their judgment for that of the pilots and our elected reps.

 

I know nothing about which base he may or May not been affiliated with. He just seems to have an allegiance to a certain doctrine and a continual support of the players involved in c2012. I did fly with with a lurker on here that was hired around the same time, so that's where the 2007-2008 referance came from.

 

Two people have said shiznit's post was personal. As in "personal attack"? I'm not seeing it. Please explain.

 

Got it. So any questions involving minimum acceptable pay increases are just window dressing? What is the point of asking such a question if it's already decided that the answer could be considered "rogue" and must be "tempered with reality?"

Sailingfun, you are perfectly illustrating exactly what many of us have been saying about DALPA being "top down" instead of "bottom up." The smartest guys in the room have got us covered and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it.

 

His post says that I thought the MEC had a low intellect.
I said nothing of the kind.

It's an attempt to personalize the discussion and avoid substantive debate.
It's fine. I'm not offended. I just think it wastes time and bandwidth.
Sometimes it's amusing but there seems a little too much of it on this board lately.

 

Yep. Happens to some degree on both sides of the argument but look at where the majority of it comes from.

 

While I understand you to be correct in saying that the C2012 TA did not meet the direction of the MEC, I must disagree with the assertion that they did not follow the survey. As I understand it, the survey was broken into three sections -- demographics, specifics, and priorities.

In the specifics section, we provided our input on various aspects of the contract in isolation -- what should our pay rates be, how much vacation should we get, etc. In the priorities section, we then ranked each of those specific issues as to their importance relative to each other.

It has been explained to me that the priorities section is used to determine where to place emphasis in the event that not all of our specific desires can be met. At the C2012 roadshow, the NC stated that, while they were unable to achieve all of our specific desires, e.g., pay, they did closely follow our desired priorities in determining where to "cut back."

 

Are minimum acceptable pay increases minimums at all costs?