Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1894042)

I personally prefer our current system. Not sure that I would like the unintended consequences of 13,000 + Pilots motivated to fly well over 80 hours each month.

If even 5000 pilots flew to 90 hours a month that would approximate 1000 less pilots needed using a current baseline of 75 hours a month.

I bet management would love it.

90-75=15. 15x5000=75,000. 75,000/75hrs = 1000 less DAL Pilots. :eek:

Scoop

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 1894082)

Our fatal flaw: the appearance of memrat. Management knows we are a rubber stamp on the MECs TA. Memrat has never overturned a MEC decision. Some say this is proof of the system, some say this narrows the focus to just 10 votes. I say membership review is never a bad thing prior to really committing to the deal. I think if it’s good enough to cause a vote at the MEC its good enough for the membership to have the language and provide their reps with a direct opinion of the work done. Sadly, this is not our process.

Beware the rush job!

From Contrails 2:

MEC Ratification of the TA is next. Only by approval of the MEC can a TA proceed to MEMRAT. The MEC reviews and considers the terms of the TA for at least seven days (or less if they choose). For the MEC, the direction they gave the negotiators to achieve the TA is the normal standard in assessing its fitness for MEMRAT. During this time the TA is not released to the membership, and if the TA is rejected by the MEC, it is returned to the negotiators without review by the membership. Under our present governance, you will never vote on the merits of an agreement that fails to pass the MEC. If the MEC approves the TA, it will then be sent to the pilot group for review and ratification.


Or less if they choose!

You will never see what or if anything was rejected!

Under our current governance you will never vote on, or see, or give feedback on, or be informed in any way of the merits of an agreement prior to a vote by the MEC.

You the membership will never see language until after it's a TA endorsed by the MEC. Too late to realistically stop. When this vote occurs there needs to be full transparency. Perhaps a release of the negotiating notes is required. Or a change to our governance. For now we can only trust but not verify. You have my trust, but I feel it wasn’t given.

I hope it is earned.

I hope it is earned!

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1894019)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I think you answered your own question. DALPA does the survey and gets their reference points...DONE. Now the membership is out of the loop until TA time.

I'm not going to go all in on cost neutral here, but in c12, do you think people asked to trade profit sharing? Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe the 717s weren't coming? Do you believe CDOs were at the "direction of the pilots?"

The rank and file, IMO, are seen as rabble to too many at the higher levels of D/ALPA. Too easy to control using fear and doubt. My opinion is that the survey is summarily disregarded by many after openers are exchanged...instead of being used as a touch stone during negotiations. Dissenters to this approach and dissenters to the company want list are attacked and shouted down then, later drummed out.

I haven't flown with anyone who thinks concessions in any form are acceptable. Most of the guys I fly with believe firmly that the company should max our 401ks every year. My microcosm may or may not be reflective of the wants of a majority of pilots.

Short story long, trust but verify hasn't worked, in my view, for a long time.

Originally Posted by EdGrimley (Post 1894121)

All good points. If this deal get's screwed up, these shortcomings need to be addressed in whatever future organization ends up representing this pilot group.

Another point....and i'll be told by the regime to put on my tin foil hat... without transparency and no way to verify, how do we know DALPA operatives aren't messing with the vote? After all, they have their marching orders. They want it to pass. They want to be able point to the fact it passed as "The majority has spoken" to quiet the heard. How do we know the majority has spoken? How do we know there hasn't been vote tampering? The handful of guys conducting the vote already think they know better than the minions what is good for the minions. There's a real danger here.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1894373)

Really great idea was recently proffered to handle that concern. The idea is that when your vote is confirmed, the system generates a random number series that becomes your ID for the vote. When voting ends, all the random ID numbers are generated with their (YES or NO) votes next to the ID. This way, each pilot could look up their vote ID number and make sure it matched, while nobody else could look up how you voted because they wouldn't know your randomly generated ID number.

Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1894373)

Really great idea was recently proffered to handle that concern. The idea is that when your vote is confirmed, the system generates a random number series that becomes your ID for the vote. When voting ends, all the random ID numbers are generated with their (YES or NO) votes next to the ID. This way, each pilot could look up their vote ID number and make sure it matched, while nobody else could look up how you voted because they wouldn't know your randomly generated ID number.

Of course, that idea will go nowhere in this MEC administration.

Carl