|
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897772)
News flash.
You are going to be disappointed. You want a contract that is all take and no give. Has that ever happened in any union contract in any industry? I'm ok with some giving if the take is worth it. It's all in the details. We will know soon enough. It's obvious what the "take" was, but no one has been able to define what the "give" was. |
A 3% inflation rate YOY is not realistic. If you look at data on st. louis federal reserve bank's website, the dollar is buying MORE. Also, look at exchange rates with other currencies. The dollar is STRONGER.
|
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897772)
News flash.
You are going to be disappointed. You want a contract that is all take and no give. Has that ever happened in any union contract in any industry? I'm ok with some giving if the take is worth it. It's all in the details. We will know soon enough. I don't know what we gave back in 2003-4, but Northwest pilots negotiated raises a year, or two, after 9/11, when the company (and industry) was hemorrhaging money. I'm not sure what we gave back in the 1998 contract, either. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1897769)
If the TA returns the highest increased value ever achieved in a Delta pilot contract would you consider that historic?
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1897769)
Note: I know basically nothing more about the TA then is posted here. Just curious how you define historic.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897772)
News flash.
You are going to be disappointed. Carl |
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897767)
I think this is part of the como package that DALPA set up as part of the contract negotiations so all the whiners couldn't say that they were never included in any of the "process".
And btw, I've read a lot of words, but very little information. |
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897772)
News flash.
You are going to be disappointed. You want a contract that is all take and no give. Has that ever happened in any union contract in any industry? I have given enough during my 26yrs. Try re-reading my letter. I will take less increases in various section... but NO gives. If you want to capitulate during the best economic times in airline history, go for it... but don't include me. Oh, and remind me what our exec's have given back for each one of their increases? Another thought, when someone goes to the boss for a raise and the boss says: "sure I'll give you a raise, but what are you going to give me back, so I can pay for your raise... was it really a raise? |
Originally Posted by LivingTheDream
(Post 1897748)
Call to Action
We have never sent the NC back after reaching a TA. If all you lurkers are as concerned as I am, I strongly suggest you email your reps today! Here is my email to my 44 reps with cc's to MD and all the LEC chairs: Of course rumors are flying and they sound quite disturbing. As a member who pays a significant amount of dues each year, and considering this is the best economic/negotiating environment in my almost 27yrs, I am expecting nothing short of spectacular… If we reduce/give back/concede on ANY section of our PWA, it must be sent back. Period. If we must accept LESS INCREASE in one section to allow MORE INCREASE in another section, I would understand that. The total value of this contract can be no less the 1 Billion per year… that is entirely reasonable and doable, given the multi-billion dollar buy backs for investors and executives. Considering our current PS and section 3.B.4, I am more than willing to “wind the clock” and remain status quo under our current contract. (And PS is a bonus. Period. It is something we accepted to take some of the sting out of the last 11yrs. It is not to be touched. Period.) If DALPA/ALPA cannot achieve an epic contract in these unprecedented financial times, than we have the wrong representational body. I will be forced to look for another entity that will be a better steward of my hard earned wages… this is not a threat, but is purely a business decision. Based on many conversations in my cockpits since 2012, I am not alone in this thinking. Thank you. P.s., I am in Asia and I know you are busy. A reply is not necessary, as your vote and the votes of the MEC will be reply enough. This is what I sent to my reps: I'm sure you guys have already gotten an earful to vote NO on this TA, and I want you to count me in that camp as well. Concessions of any kind in this environment are unacceptable to me - especially in areas where our survey said the negotiators were not to touch. For me, if scope is not strengthened, it must be an automatic NO regardless of what's in the rest of it. Scope concessions of any kind are unacceptable. More importantly however, you need to send this back for the sake of our reps' role in our union. This top-down governance has to stop. Sending back a concessionary TA that didn't follow the will of our survey, is exactly what's needed to remind this administration who runs this union. You'd not only be doing this for you, you'd be doing it for all the reps that will follow you in the future. I simply won't be able to support anyone in this union that doesn't fight for reps' rule, and is willing to concede on Scope. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1897820)
This is what I sent to my reps:
I'm sure you guys have already gotten an earful to vote NO on this TA, and I want you to count me in that camp as well. Concessions of any kind in this environment are unacceptable to me - especially in areas where our survey said the negotiators were not to touch. For me, if scope is not strengthened, it must be an automatic NO regardless of what's in the rest of it. Scope concessions of any kind are unacceptable. More importantly however, you need to send this back for the sake of our reps' role in our union. This top-down governance has to stop. Sending back a concessionary TA that didn't follow the will of our survey, is exactly what's needed to remind this administration who runs this union. You'd not only be doing this for you, you'd be doing it for all the reps that will follow you in the future. I simply won't be able to support anyone in this union that doesn't fight for reps' rule, and is willing to concede on Scope. Carl Excellent. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by LivingTheDream
(Post 1897807)
By whiners are you referring to us dues paying members?
And btw, I've read a lot of words, but very little information. We all pay dues. Some have to mention it all the time. Do you think the rep you sent your email to said, "Wait a minute, I got a message from a guy that pays dues, better put that one at the top of the list." ? BTW, the very definition of "Negotiate" means to deal or bargain with another or others. The only reason the company hasn't "iced" us and gone into the usual 3-5 year contract model is that they need something. I'm willing to see what it is and what value we can garner from their needs. Your belief that we should not deal with or bargain with the company would never get us a deal. It's unrealistic and will cost the pilot group. If we don't like the deal we can vote no. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:42 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands