Originally Posted by dckozak

If your married you know that emotion trumps facts every time.

Originally Posted by shiznit

What facts? I've seen NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING from the DPA proponents that would present a better and tangible outcome than what we already have.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

DAL88;
I agree with many of your items. The pro con papers are a great idea but they need to be done correctly. The cannot be rants, but fact based. I have had an education on these by some of the former authors. It is important to know what works and what does not, but I do agree that they need to be done. They have to talk about the same items and issues and cannot just be papers written from the hip. That goes for both pro and con.


The con paper should be written by someone who is truly against the issue. If I recall correctly, AW wrote a con paper, but he wasn't actually against what he was debating. SD used to write an excellent dissenting opinion - I'd like him back.


I do not mind reps telling me why they voted for it and why they think the TA of this or that is a good deal. I do agree that selling something over and above this should be toned down. Let your reasoning be your argument.

The sales job is as much because DALPA has been unanimous in their opinion that it was the best they could do. Rather than say that though, they sell what they got.


I have talked to a bunch of guys that voted yes on LOA 46 and 51 and well as LOA 19/JPWA and asked them what lead them to their votes. Not one of them mentioned fear mongering even after I asked if they though the "fear" card was played and whether or not it effected them. Most just understood on some level where they and the company were.

FEAR was the ONLY reason to vote yes to these - FEAR of losing one's job. How is that not FEAR? I voted no because pensions should be TAKEN by the bankruptcy judge and voted NO because some companies -if they are poorly managed and run, should go out of business. Full pay to the last day, where's our snapback clause.

I will state that if the company keeps making tons of money, many of these guys are going to demand a lot of it back too. Fact is that most of the guys feel the company cannot afford restoration. No fear mongering is needed for them to come to that conclusion. The just read the 10K.
This is not my opinion but that of the guys and gals I fly with. Many do not see the company in a position to afford a 2-3 billion dollar per year bump in our compensation unless others follow suit.

Like I have said, if you want to change that, DPA is not going to do it. It needs to be done by education and a heck of a lot of work by each and every pilot that wants guys to understand what you demand ALPA does not get. Again, it is not ALPA that you need to change, it is the majority position of the pilots. Get them to tell DAL to restore pay, retirement, work rules etc, and then get them to back it up. Until then it does not matter who is doing your negotiating. The votes will still fall the same way.

Originally Posted by shiznit

Opinion only.....Can you cite unequivocal, verifiable facts to go with your accounting of those events?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

DAL88;
I agree with many of your items. The pro con papers are a great idea but they need to be done correctly. The cannot be rants, but fact based. I have had an education on these by some of the former authors. It is important to know what works and what does not, but I do agree that they need to be done. They have to talk about the same items and issues and cannot just be papers written from the hip. That goes for both pro and con.

I do not mind reps telling me why they voted for it and why they think the TA of this or that is a good deal. I do agree that selling something over and above this should be toned down. Let your reasoning be your argument.

I have talked to a bunch of guys that voted yes on LOA 46 and 51 and well as LOA 19/JPWA and asked them what lead them to their votes. Not one of them mentioned fear mongering even after I asked if they though the "fear" card was played and whether or not it effected them. Most just understood on some level where they and the company were.

I will state that if the company keeps making tons of money, many of these guys are going to demand a lot of it back too. Fact is that most of the guys feel the company cannot afford restoration. No fear mongering is needed for them to come to that conclusion. The just read the 10K.
This is not my opinion but that of the guys and gals I fly with. Many do not see the company in a position to afford a 2-3 billion dollar per year bump in our compensation unless others follow suit.

Like I have said, if you want to change that, DPA is not going to do it. It needs to be done by education and a heck of a lot of work by each and every pilot that wants guys to understand what you demand ALPA does not get. Again, it is not ALPA that you need to change, it is the majority position of the pilots. Get them to tell DAL to restore pay, retirement, work rules etc, and then get them to back it up. Until then it does not matter who is doing your negotiating. The votes will still fall the same way.

Originally Posted by fly2002

I think what we are seeing here is a realization of a shift in how pilots will be represented moving forward. Look at ALPA. Around 38 airlines represented and only 2 are major airlines. Delta and United. Fedex is also ALPA but can easily be seen as being in a different industry.

Looking at my crystal ball I see ALPA representing ONLY regional airlines. And here's the thing....THATS OK. The regional airlines need someone to represent them, and help increase their quality of life.

The majors, now SWA, USAIR, UAL, DAL, AMR will likely all have independent unions that use CAPA to have a voice and lobby in Washington.

Once DAL leaves ALPA you will see the new UAL bolt about a second afterwards as they find themselves funding, as well as surrounded by, regionals.

My DPA card is in for a number of reasons. And I used to be an ALPA rep actually!!

1. I'm not going to fund airlines that actively try and steal my flying.
2. I'm not going to fund a union that has no ballz and cannot take a position on anything.
3. I'm not going to fund Airtran pilots trying to get a better position within SWA only to leave ALPA and join SWAPA. I pay for this sh@t EVERY MONTH OUT OF MYYYYYY PAYCHECK.........(sorry AT guys)


Guys seriously.....quit choking the sick horse with pills and just put a bullet in it.

fly2002

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot

Have to disagree here....... DAL can afford to increase our pay rates to pre BK rates and even adjust for inflation. I did the math a few years ago but the gist of it was they would need to increase ticket prices by about $1.60 an hour of flight per pax on a fully loaded aircraft. So based on this a 5 hour coast to coast would need an increase of about $8 per ticket to cover the increase, not too much in my opinion.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot

Have to disagree here....... DAL can afford to increase our pay rates to pre BK rates and even adjust for inflation. I did the math a few years ago but the gist of it was they would need to increase ticket prices by about $1.60 an hour of flight per pax on a fully loaded aircraft. So based on this a 5 hour coast to coast would need an increase of about $8 per ticket to cover the increase, not too much in my opinion.

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot

Have to disagree here....... DAL can afford to increase our pay rates to pre BK rates and even adjust for inflation. I did the math a few years ago but the gist of it was they would need to increase ticket prices by about $1.60 an hour of flight per pax on a fully loaded aircraft. So based on this a 5 hour coast to coast would need an increase of about $8 per ticket to cover the increase, not too much in my opinion.