Heyas,

Sailings post is dead on. Why not enjoy all the benefits, and none of the cost while you can coast on the pilot's coattails.

We'd have better luck getting the improved call in honest if it was after the election.

If AFA fails again, expect to see them back in 2 years. It's TOO big a dues nut to for them to ignore. It will be a never ending effort for them.

Nu

Iceman,

I'm not sure if you're asking me to justify that they've done better, or explain how they've done better. I think Sailing dscribed the process fairly well in his post, whereby the mere threat of having a union was enough to ensure that the company would unilaterally offer "me too" benefits. They have been able to piggiback on what their industry peers get AND engage in "pattern-bargaining" (without even negotiating) vs. ALPA at DAL. It's been a pretty good strategy for them.

I was more simply stating as a matter of fact that they have done quite well, and that their conditions (from what I'm told) are better than those enjoyed by their counterparts at NW, AND that they've enjoyed better conditions over a long period of time than their counterparts at almost any airline. The bankruptcy period blurrs the line somewhat, of course.

Under AFA, they will have to earn everything they get at the negotiating table. A divided group will have difficulty doing this. It's hard to describe to you how much of a transition it will be for some of these guys/gals to learn to fight against RA. You'll see after SOC that they're a totally different animal than what you're used to. You might also conclude it will be a long, long time before they learn how to get a big piece of any pie.

You'll see after SOC that they're a totally different animal than what you're used to. You might also conclude it will be a long, long time before they learn how to get a big piece of any pie.

Would you clarify? Wish we had the same enforceable contract RA, Ed, and Glen have.

Isn't THAT the truth...:mad:

For those of you that believe that the Delta flight attendants have had it good without the cost of being represented, please look at the following...

http://deltaafa.org/images/Newslette...News-Jul09.pdf

Don't you want know that the people on the other side of the door are also taken care of? Being able to fly less would also equal less cranky flight attendants and most of all flight attendants that are not fatigued.

I would like to add that an overwhelming majority of the Pre-merger NW pilots and pilots from all bases with the exeption of ATL have been VERY supportive.

I want to thank you all for what you have done so far, and look forward to flying with you.

Iceman,

I'll try to expand a little. Before I embarass myself, trying to tell you things you already know... you're "North", right?

I do live north of the Mason-Dixon line, sorry...just don't get the statement after soc it will be a different animal.

That goes to the heart of the reason that I think the F/As will vote against the union. I routinely fly with flight attendants who fly in excess of 100 hours per month; I recall one telling me that she flew 6 JFK-Tel Aviv trips per month (25:05 x 6 = 150:30!).

I won't judge why they do it, or if they really need to fly that much. The fact is, though, that they do, and they will not vote for a union, if that union eventually makes them reduce their hours to a more reasonable level. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no union that condones or contractually allows that level of flying.

I doubt if the union would do that restriction, currently up Nord some FA's fly very high time lines....but its a choice. As you know its about having an enforceable contract.