Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1897010)

The recall and DPA threats are quite juvenile. The only cause for recall in this process would be if a rep voted for or against in opposition of the constituency during ratification. That would demonstrate that the rep is out of touch with those he is representing. Curiously, councils 1 & 20 did not recall their reps who voted not to pass along the 2012 TA before their bases showed the highest percentage yes votes during the ratification. Recall is dumb and an empty threat.

Going over to the DPA is even dumber. That ship sailed and sunk a long time ago. Fact is the majority of Delta pilots see that outfit for what it is, a small group of misfits perpetuating outright lies, half truths, and illusion.

The same emotional unstable personas are here, as always, looking to spew and inform us all just how big a POS this TA really is. Of course they have nothing to go on, but why let that inconvenient truth get in the way of a their latest tantrum or good cry? My teenage daughter shows more emotional stability and poise.

I find it interesting that there hasn't been any substantial leaks this time from Councils 1 & 20. They tried to torpedo the 2012 TA during the MEC review. After finding themselves in the minority during the vote, they continued to campaign against membership ratification. As far as I know, neither council apologized to its members For being out of step with the consensus majority. Maybe both councils see this TA a little differently.

It is very clear that the MEC followed a different path than last time, as evidenced by the nearly continuous string of special MEC meetings. The MEC effectively made itself into the negotiating committee. I would say that tactic is fraught with risk, but it just might have worked this time. There won't be any surprises next week. The MEC saw this TA presented in conceptual form at the previous special MEC meeting. They debated and voted on whether to green light the negotiating team. Next week they will review the language.

I suspect the votes fell along the same and predictable lines, similar to last time. I view it as cultural thing. What remains to be seen is how vehement the NO crowd is this time. A lack of bombastic rhetoric from them actually will signal they are satisfied with the TA. This because I think culturally they find it distasteful to join the consensus. Far better to be viewed as bare knuckle bad *** unionists. Interestingly, the members of those councils see through the theatrics and vote accordingly. Further, they don't hold it against their reps. Just the way the sausage is made.

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1897047)

Seeing as the voting process is anonymous, how are you able to ascertain that councils 1 & 20 had the highest numbers of yes voters amongst line pilots for c2012?

Just curious.

I didn't think DALPA broke down memrat vote demographics after a TA. If they do any idea where one would be able to find that information?

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1897010)

Curiously, councils 1 & 20 did not recall their reps who voted not to pass along the 2012 TA before their bases showed the highest percentage yes votes during the ratification.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 1896997)

Section 6 TA was sent back? When again, I must have missed it.

And I don't remember seeing language or voting on CDOs either.

Originally Posted by RockyBoy (Post 1896891)

There is the key to getting this to pass. I've said all along that there is no way they will get a TA to pass unless they come up with another "fleeting opportunity". Hopefully we won't fall for that trick again.

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896835)

The bottom tier of profit sharing has a defined value. If we monetize that into payrates, the absolute worst case that would result in is breaking even. We couldn't lose money (which we easily could if we kept it as is and the company started doing worse). Keeping the top end ensures that we participate in any upside. It's a win/win that way.

I don't know if that's what the TA did. But I do know that's what I hope they did.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1897010)

The recall and DPA threats are quite juvenile. The only cause for recall in this process would be if a rep voted for or against in opposition of the constituency during ratification. That would demonstrate that the rep is out of touch with those he is representing. Curiously, councils 1 & 20 did not recall their reps who voted not to pass along the 2012 TA before their bases showed the highest percentage yes votes during the ratification. Recall is dumb and an empty threat.

Going over to the DPA is even dumber. That ship sailed and sunk a long time ago. Fact is the majority of Delta pilots see that outfit for what it is, a small group of misfits perpetuating outright lies, half truths, and illusion.

The same emotional unstable personas are here, as always, looking to spew and inform us all just how big a POS this TA really is. Of course they have nothing to go on, but why let that inconvenient truth get in the way of a their latest tantrum or good cry? My teenage daughter shows more emotional stability and poise.

I find it interesting that there hasn't been any substantial leaks this time from Councils 1 & 20. They tried to torpedo the 2012 TA during the MEC review. After finding themselves in the minority during the vote, they continued to campaign against membership ratification. As far as I know, neither council apologized to its members For being out of step with the consensus majority. Maybe both councils see this TA a little differently.

It is very clear that the MEC followed a different path than last time, as evidenced by the nearly continuous string of special MEC meetings. The MEC effectively made itself into the negotiating committee. I would say that tactic is fraught with risk, but it just might have worked this time. There won't be any surprises next week. The MEC saw this TA presented in conceptual form at the previous special MEC meeting. They debated and voted on whether to green light the negotiating team. Next week they will review the language.

I suspect the votes fell along the same and predictable lines, similar to last time. I view it as cultural thing. What remains to be seen is how vehement the NO crowd is this time. A lack of bombastic rhetoric from them actually will signal they are satisfied with the TA. This because I think culturally they find it distasteful to join the consensus. Far better to be viewed as bare knuckle bad *** unionists. Interestingly, the members of those councils see through the theatrics and vote accordingly. Further, they don't hold it against their reps. Just the way the sausage is made.

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot (Post 1897011)

Typical comment born out of ignorance.

Originally Posted by Bigflya (Post 1896982)

Gents, been a long time since I posted. Probably C2012. I have been saying for a long time that the co can't just come out with big flashy numbers like 15,10,8,8 (for hypothetical purposes only) without upsetting the other labor groups. Like it or not we do negotiate for the company. The other groups would look to unionize quick. They need to give us shadow raises that increase our W2 but aren't obvious to the avg employee. Avg daily guarantee, 401k (over the max comes back as pay) vacation etc. I'm giving the MEC the benefit of the doubt until I see it. The headline raise numbers could be deceiving. Full disclosure. My DPA card is current.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1897051)

I was just about to ask that same question.

I don't think that information has ever been released. Kind of like the survey results.

Looks like that guy has outed himself as a DALPA insider and/or puppet (albeit not a very "sharp" one).