Very well. Here was your question:

I believe the NMB would release us to a 30 day cooling off period when they saw our negotiations were at an impasse. It's a rhetorical question anyway because DALPA has no plans whatsoever to put any labor risk on the table. 100% guaranteed.

Now, why don't you say what you really mean? What you really mean is that ALPA's consistent talking point is that we can't confront management on anything because the NMB will park us for eternity.

Carl

The only point to whether someone is an "insider" or not is just to show what DALPA's unofficial official position is. They won't actually come out and state any kind of objective, other than some nebulous "we want to improve at every opportunity" BS mission statement that leaves it wide open as to what we're trying to accomplish. So we get guys like alfa, for example, (who most definitely is a DALPA insider) coming on here and really providing a good window into what our MEC thinks but is smart enough to not say. So I think this insider or not stuff is relevant, at least to some degree. PD contributes plenty of issues based commentary as well.

And, yeah, I have no problem with the insiders posting here. I WANT them to post. A lot. In a sick sort of way, it's kinda fun (and sad at the same time) watching them squirm as they try to justify a lower value for our profession.

My only agenda here is to express my own personal opinions as a line pilot on the ongoing discussions of our collective professional futures. I see more than one possibly correct answer to almost every issue, and I hold contempt for no one who does not happen to agree with the one that I see to be the more likely.

Why can't we all just debate the issues without resorting to, well whatever is it that some folks seem to need to resort to... :eek:

I wasn't here then, but I hope your memory of this is wrong. There is no way the negotiating committee should ever be given carte blanch. Ever. Their job is to pursue the direction of the MEC, not go rogue like the C2012 negotiating committee.

If this was the "lesson" everyone learned from C2K, that sure explains the bad actions by the NC in C2012.

Carl

I think I was pretty clear in one of my earlier posts today that the situation has changed at SWA. As I understand it, they have effectively taken a pay cut because a lot of the premium pay opportunities have dried up for them.

But as I said before, in 2012 the "SWAPA infomercial" data WAS relevant. It was a data point showing arguably our biggest domestic competitor at the time with pilots making substantially more than our pilot doing the same type of flying. It was a data point that could have been used to help bolster our argument that our pay no longer needs to be based on bankruptcy and needed to be boosted significantly (a heck of a lot more than 4833). DALPA refused to use this. In fact, they not only refused to use it, they tried to sweep it under the rug.

Yes you were, (well done, btw) and yes they have. Yet, there has been no change to their contract itself. The reduction in overall $$$ per time away from home was purely driven by the context of their staffing levels.

Because of the very fact that its context was not included -- the fact that they were presently making this kind of money because of their staffing levels, money that was in no way guaranteed by their contract. Take Delta's staffing levels down to that level consistently and across the board and you'll see a similarly substantial inflation of our compensation from what is guaranteed under the PWA.

Guess what? Your union has plenty of accountability from thousands of your fellow pilots. What they won't waste heartbeats on is a perpetual middle-school (if that) mentality that equates snotty-nosed tantrums with an agenda of "demanding accountability."


I have no "agenda" than the best interests of the Delta pilots, no matter what the means to that end. I am willing to take it to a strike without hesitation if that is what C2015 leads to--I despise SCABS and anyone like them. But the bottom line is that there have been many, many improvements to our contract the past few years, all one modest step at a time. Added and compounded together, and our contract is a much better entity than it was a few years ago. I know that you and your fellow whiners don't want to acknowledge that, because that interferes with your self-delusional narrative that we are all two inches away from an ass-reaming from a sharpened bamboo stake.

I've met a couple or three koolaid drinkers who actually claimed we were overpaid, etc (yikes) but they are less than five in 17 years. We all want more money, more time off, more flexibility, etc.

We want what you want. We may disagree with the tactics, but that doesn't mean we disagree on the end result. I'm not sure why you ever think otherwise.

I didn't see him as demeaning your talk. What he was clearly saying is that he didn't believe your talk. I agree in that I think you talk a little tough occasionally to have a little "street cred" and not come off as a 100% DALPA apologist. But in the end, you always come around to the 100% alignment with DALPA. That's what he meant when he said this:

Now you on the other hand stooped to the standard DALPA tactic of disqualifying someone's opinion because you made the (wrong in DAL88's case) assumption that he'd never done any work in DALPA...and only talk:

That was very alfaromeo of you. It's not flattering.

Carl

Whoopty-dingdong.

You're comparing our current contract (when the company is wildly profitable) to our contract "a few years ago" (when the company was bankrupt).

Now there's something we can hang our hats on.

The company is more profitable than ever before.

Why are you unable to commit to demanding that we make more money and have more time off than ever before?

If we can't do it now...when can we?

Sure enough that's the exact talking point from DALPA. And it is absolutely meaningless political non-speak. If our MEC wasn't trying to pull off another charade like C2012, they'd be professional enough to give a detailed strategy as opposed to this political nonsense that can't be measured or tracked.

What good would any of that do without the will to USE that leverage? Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. Without the will to USE any leverage, it's a total waste of time trying to create leverage.

Carl