Ok. Lets boil this down to the bone. When times were bad, ie BK, the pilots gave and gave and gave to keep the company going (In interest of honesty I was not on the property then.) Now that times are stellar, why does mgmt not give back and give back and give back. Seems pretty simple to me. This concessionary TA does not ring of a TA that promotes harmony that's always touted among the Delta family.

Don't be blinded by miniscule, self-funded raises. If those are the raises the company would like to offer then there should be the buy of PS change on top of that.

And we haven't even discussed the rest of the HUGE concessions.

Just sayin'

I don't believe you. In a previous post, you said you were paid 21 hours of flight pay loss. That's around $3,500 dollars (or more) of our dues money given to you to not fly your trip and post on the Internet instead. As long as you stay on message, you'll continue getting paid.

But you always minimize anything that's negative, and then try to spin it as a positive.

You can't refute anything I say with actual TA language. You can only reply with approved administration talking points. It's why you sound so weak and...paid for.

Agreed. Educate yourself with the TA language. Not the Negotiator's Notepads that try to redefine what the clear language means.

Carl

This is tiresome. You win. We got played because our guys are morons. Vote DPA.

1. Carl does NOT have an anti-ALPA agenda. He never has. What he does have is an in-depth understanding of just who the MEC leadership is, their history, their motivations, and precisely why he is opposed to the current leadership.

2. You are engaging in EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing..."drag(ging people) down like a Saddam Hussein statue after the war". You accuse Carl of being anti-ALPA (without any kind of reasonable proof, I might add) and me of not being a DAL pilot (again, with no kind of proof whatsoever).


I, for one, am glad you say are leaning towards a "no" vote. I think that is very justifiable. But you don't get to be a hypocrite and claim to be credible at the same time. Meantime, you sure are acting like a "yes" voter whose feelings have gotten hurt.

.

Well, guess I was right. Not capable of adding an original thought to solve a problem. Appears you were unable to come up with ideas, solutions, that can collectively advance our group from the ditch we are in. Again, that works better than what you are doing. On the current path, you'll just rinse and repeat - get angry, attack people here, eventually go away claiming disgust, lurk, get angry again, invent new screen name, come back, repeat.

Let's start with one simple problem. One bite at a time. How does one keep DPA at bay at a a time when they will capitalize on the crisis at hand? Ideas T, ideas.....

Just like the question, given the chance ALPA gets another shot at negotiation if this is:

1. Rejected, and,

2. Representation remains in their control and it is not lost to the DPA,

What would you do different to ensure a different negotiated outcome.

Try stretching yourself, T.

There's plenty of proof about Carl. He'll tell you himself I'm sure. Anti-ALPA, anti-DALPA, anti current union, I don't care. That's fine. I know where he stands from years of posting and he has good points sometimes. You, on the other hand, come out of nowhere trashing long-time posters here. How about telling us a little about yourself so we can judge for ourselves? I appreciate the flow of information from both camps. What I don't appreciate is people trying to shut down one point of view, especially those that don't work here.

I don't know what I would have done differently since I wasn't privvy (like you apparently were) to actual conversations and data in the course of negotiations. I only have the resultant TA to vote on. I don't want to speculate on how it went down, what I could have done differently because that is a meaningless exercise. You feel differently. Fine. Have a blast. I am off to the gym in a few.

Oh and be sure to send in your DPA card, that'll show 'em.

Read for comprehension maybe.

If Dalpa survives to negotiate again, you don't have any input on how mistakes can be learned from and turned to strengths later?

We've established then that you have nothing to add other than your panicked and angered response to the environment you find yourself in.

I have not trashed anyone. My recommendation to put Bender and Professor on "ignore" is quite reasonable from my point of view. Professor for all the rational Carl has gone to the (successful) effort of demonstrating why he adds no value to the discussion, and Bender because someone who does not understand a simple thing like the rationals/purpose of a stock buyback is not someone who can be reasonable thought to be able to understand a complicated TA.

As for my history, I don't feel that is relevant to this thread. I'm certainly not going to derail the thread to satisfy your opinion. As for my not being a DAL pilot, that is for you...the accuser...to prove. Not me to prove otherwise. Meantime, yeah, it makes so much sense for me to be investing so much unpaid time to engage in these discussions if you're right, doesn't it?? :rolleyes:

Lastly, I'll say it again. Carl isn't "Anti-ALPA, anti-DALPA, anti-current union" per se. If ALPA worked the way it is supposed to work, and specifically it's mgmt/representation, he would be 100% for it. He'll tell you that, I'm sure. The fact that you say "I don't care" simply shows you really don't know what Carl is for or against. So no, you don't get to put words in his mouth, anymore than you do mine or anyone else's.

.

Professor:

I don't think I will be able to make any of the road shows so could you please help me out.

Did the NC look at any numbers for how the LCA change will impact the F/Os? I have seen a lot of numbers thrown around but I'm really interested to know how many less line holders and how many less F/O jobs we're talking about. Surely the NC had to have some hard data before signing off on that. It has to affect more than just those directly getting LCA trips.