Originally Posted by Professor

Look I don't know what kind of paranoid rip-stop nylon cloth you and PD and gzsg were cut from but its rubbing most of us raw.

Originally Posted by Chuck Essential

I didn’t realize that Butt Head (you do know of his past behavior of head butting the MEC VC in MSP, don’t you?) was back on the MEC. And now Beavis, his FO rep, have decided to skewer the negotiators prior to even reaching an agreement. Carrying on the Council 1 tradition from 2012 of just saying NO to everything and likely carrying out the politics of personal attacks orchestrated by Detroit and their CVG FO lapdog.

These morons are costing every Delta pilot money.

Originally Posted by Professor

Its good to disagree in a democracy.

I have negotiated, a lot, in a former life. In negotiations there is a concept you are always working to refine down to. BATNA. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. What do you do if you don't get what you want?

Well, if the company doesn't get what they want and then they know what your next ask or move might be THEY have all sorts of extra-contractual capabilities to get what they want. Just look at the FOM change for the commuting policy!

If you hand over the survey results, and you could argue ANY survey results, you give them a leg up in refining their BATNA all the time. You don't want that. That's bad. Very bad.


If anyone wantse by showing me the to read up on it.
Best alternative to a negotiated agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

All indications are that C1 is in the majority this time.



Sorry that your autonomous snap/salute parade can't march forth defying direction this time around.

Originally Posted by Raging white

You say "very bad". I say it's noise level. How do you measure the effectiveness of a negotiator to achieve his goal if you don't know the goal. I'll bet I'm not alone with my lack of faith in the "you gotta trust me, this is what you asked for" position of DALPA. If you want me to trust you, it's not unreasonable to expect you to trust me and share the survey results. I promise not to show the company.

Originally Posted by Professor

I don't know anything. That is the point. Why? Because they aren't sharing their take on internal machinations with the pilot body-at-large. THAT is their job right now. They could be in lock step with council one. Who knows? I don't.


This passive aggressive stunt only highlights their dissatisfaction as LEC reps. But because they are willing to say some things, but not what they mean...its starts fires burning all over the place.

And passive aggressive is precisely what this is. And how well does any individual or group respond to that kind of behavior?

What I do know is that by taking this outside the confines of discussions with their LEC colleagues they have created tangential problems I am sure they didn't consider.

Let us start with collegiality. How are other councils going to view these individuals airing the dirty laundry of the group? Do they really think that a move like this will endear them to other councils when those councils are playing by the rules? Do they think that will win them votes NOW from other LEC's?

The other thing they didn't consider is the company opening a section once closed because these LEC reps mentioned it. Why? Because they know that if they press to test on sick leave, they can gain back something else over 'here' they didn't want to give and then be back at zero sum on sick leave again.

Please, everyone reading this, think about what it is like to be on both sides of that table. It's only in having some empathy for the plight and struggle that both sides go through in negotiations that can you gain insight into why any mention of satisfaction or dissatisfaction becomes a bargaining chip for the mgmt side.

Yes, I know that the company generally knows what we want. But in active negotiations when a group ADVISING the negotiators for us publicly points out a few very specific things, this is dangerous and just plain old stupid.

I said it once, I will say it before...its bush league. I expect more from pilots at this airline elected to represent people. This move smacks more of ego than it does anything else.

To me, it looks like a pre-emptive move for them to distance themselves from a contract they don't think MSP will like and help keep them in office. Why else would they go wide? Do they really think that this would help push their point with the MEC?

I'm still flabbergasted that any LEC would publish this pre-TA.

Originally Posted by pilotstats

Post of the day.

Scenario: The MSP representatives are upset that reps in bases with co-terminal airports desire paid cab fare for pilots when rotations originate at the "less desirable" airports (i.e. EWR). The MSP reps feel that the MEC should seek gains for ALL Delta Pilots and not be subject to direction that is pure pork-barrel. However, the "cab fare seeking reps" have promised support to other bases who have parochial issues, and therefore gained a majority for their purposes.

In this instance, MSP reps have a right to be upset. They do not have the right to blame the NC; the NC takes its instruction from the MEC as a whole, and are bound to follow that majority position. What they do not have the right to do is air dirty laundry to everyone and undercut the unified voice of us to management. That hurts us all and takes money out of your future paychecks.

What C1 wrote and published was petulant, childish, destructive, and does not contribute to a positive outcome for Delta Pilots. This is a sad day for ALPA when it's 1st Local behaves like this. Not the kind of history they will want to be known for; history aside I hope the damage to our collective checking accounts can be mitigated.

Originally Posted by scambo1

Prof,
I did not read council 1's comm the same way you did. However, I would expect them to be no votes to release the TA to the membership based on what they did write. I don't have a problem with them writing it either. However, it is sausage making for sure.

There are shreds of truth or plausibility throughout what you wrote, but that is your viewpoint. My viewpoint is that there is no reason to hurry this TA. Status quo is fine with me until the RIGHT agreement is reached. But, I don't want to give up any scope and want to reel it in significantly...maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by Professor

Is that true? How would we know?

Seriously. Asking.