DAL 88 Driver

Yeah, if it doesn't agree with what you think then it MUST be emotional. That trick is getting old, Shiz, and I don't think anyone who is objective is buying it.

Not necessarily. We're in very uncharted territory now. Never before in the history of our profession had we taken such a massive concessionary hit as what we took just prior to and during bankruptcy. We're talking about recovering from that... i.e. restoration. And after 10 years we're nowhere even remotely close, with no apparent objective or plan to accomplish it.

And the quote of mine that you are addressing talked about how our negotiating committee and MEC chairman went rogue and substituted what they thought best for what the pilot group thought best as stated in the survey and through other input. Then they put together an epic marketing and fear campaign to get enough votes to sell the thing to at least 51%. In my book, that is lacking from an ethical standpoint. And accepting such a dramatically lower standard for compensation for our profession is IMO lacking from a common sense standpoint.

Not likely. I agree that unity is important. But you're never going to unify a large percentage (about 40% it seems?) around the concept of bankruptcy as a reset. DALPA will not get my support as long as they're hawking that kind of crap. You can call it "emotional" all you want, but that is my measured opinion. Start pursuing restoration as your objective and you'll have more unity than you know what to do with!

Carl Spackler

Look shiznit, you were a rep when this whole C2012 mess happened. You know better than this, yet you're purposely trying to obfuscate. Why?

Yes the NC can make a deal but only within the confines of the reps' direction. That did not happen. That's why so many of you and the MEC admins got ousted.

Within the confines of the reps' direction. That didn't happen.

For many reasons that have already been covered. When you try to assert that the vote percentage indicates strong support for the TA and those who negotiated it, you sound completely detached from reality.

As stated many times before, nobody was fooled. Nobody. The reps realized what the NC did when they saw the TA. The subsequent week of threats and arm twisting of reps showed nothing more than people voting for the best among two very bad choices. The proof of that is not one single Yes voting rep coming out in writing strongly supporting the TA. If there was one single yes voting rep that wrote an enthusiastic report of the TA, I'd like to read it if anyone has it. Everyone I read was lukewarm support with lots of caveats.

No worse than your extremely low opinion of pilots who you think can't see through these naked straw man arguments. Is this the price that ousted reps have to pay in order to get back into the MEC in a non-elected position?

Carl

Carl Spackler

Completely incorrect. There were specific questions on what is the minimum pay percentage gain that you will accept, etc.

Carl

Carl Spackler

If you go back and read the LEC emails from back then, you'll see that many reps (including yes voting reps) acknowledged that in many cases the pilot survey was not followed.

True.

That's what the NC stated. That's not what my reps stated. That's the problem.

Carl

Carl Spackler

No not at all costs.

Should minimum acceptable pay increases be forgone in order to get a quick 3 year deal done before Section 6 negotiations even begin?

Carl

Carl Spackler

Exactly right.

Couldn't agree more.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Probably why the MEC chairman refuses to ever release the survey results. What's the point...the union doesn't have to follow them anyway. What's the point? Making pilots feel they have input.

Yes, even when that direction is ignored by MEC admins and the admins purposely put our reps in no-win situations.

Indeed, and I think that's happening more and more. Nothing personal, but I like the trend of voting out reps like you and voting in reps like my guys, the CVG FO rep, etc.

Carl

shiznit

I keep forgetting that you are the objective one and those that don't agree with you are the emotional ones, thanks for the reminder.

Still haven't seen any coherent evidence that the "rogue" admin were so smart/sneaky/manipulative/coercive/whatever adjective works, that 16 of our peer elected pilots would evaluate and debate for 7 days and still be outsmarted/fooled/coerced/tricked/beat up on/bullied. I saw the same TA information as you and it's hard to be a "sell job" when they flat out tell you that the TA will give the company 125-150 less pilots needed, and allowed more large RJ's.

I fail to see how the pilot group voted almost 2:1 in favor if it was unworthy. Are pilots that incapable of making an informed decision? (OBTW, the C2012 pass rate was only about 5% lower than C2K)

You need a talking point or a memo with the word "restoration" in it, got it. That puts more money in my checking account how?

Lastly, if you have an ethics complaint against another member, either put up or shut up. There is a way to address that with the C&BL Section 8. Ethics violations are a serious topic. Care to provide any proof or are you merely impugning another member?

Carl Spackler

So in the world of tsquare, you're disqualified if you don't trust your reps? I think one of his reps is Nestor. How could anyone trust someone that blatantly political?

Another disqualification attempt. You do that a lot tsquare. Why?

Carl

Carl Spackler

For you it might be money, but only to the extent you NEVER push management at all. And by the way, DAL88 has been pretty clear that scope is his priority.

Just jumpseated with a new hire who asked me about the 747 retirements and whether the Atlantic JV violation is causing it. He seemed well versed and concerned about top end scope.

For me it's top end scope, bottom end scope, work rules and pay...in that order. Also, I'd like a union that will defend our language instead of running from it.

Really?

Carl