There is no advantage to not saying anything. Quite the contrary, there are a lot of problems with not saying anything. Things like... expectations... purpose... resolve... unity.... come to mind.

This is true with pay as well as scope.

 

I agree DAL.

Well, if a TA comes down with a scope sale it will be met with...

 

While we prepare for our contract questionnaire, I think it might be helpful for some of us guys to come up with a section by section manifesto, then rank order the items in order of importance.

Section 1:

 

More Section 1:

 

FTB:

If that happens, an immediate recall of the Reps that voted for it would be an order.

 

Yes, more than a few here and there need to do that. I have a list by section I have been keeping track of. I know of at least two other pilots that have done that too.

 

I plan to vote NO on whatever comes down the pipe first. Whatever POS they come up with will need to go back into the oven and get baked further till it's golden brown.

The whole dog and pony show about how this is the best they can do and we better vote yes is all BS.

 

[QUOTE=capncrunch;1057049]I plan to vote NO on whatever comes down the pipe first.....



That's the way to use your mind...not.

 

I agree and I don't think such a TA would be put out.

I'm trying to figure out the chess match here and doing a bit of transference on ALPA as to what they're goal is.

Let's say ALPA's desire is significantly stronger scope and FedEx rates. Let's say they make that public and the company makes nothing public.

If you're the company, you hold out and in your opening you say 3% COLA increase and 100 scope sale. Now you know what ALPA wants as a minimum so your goal now becomes to go to arbitration and then turn to the arbitrator and say find somewhere in the middle you're willing to compromise.

A compromise of course would probably be halfway between everything, we'd get half the difference in pay and scope. The masses are livid.

So if you're ALPA you say nothing and tell everyone expect nothing because you can't be blamed if you come in exactly there. But you come in with an opening that says 76 seaters reduced to 70 seaters and that number cut down to 75 aircraft plus contract sunsets. You also think the best and affordable rate is FedEx + 5%, so you ask for C2K + full restoration plus interest.

Now when you go to arbitration you work it out in the middle and you were willing to allow some scope to remain and you're pay rates were nothing more than return to what you once had. A middle location may be FedEx+5% and good scope. You're heroes. No more calls for DPA or FPL to be unveiled.

I don't know. Trying to play devil's advocate. I'm transferring what I want to ALPA here I know and they've gone silent so who knows.

The problem is you have to trust an organization whose relationship with national makes you so uneasy so as to believe interference will prevent ever practically recapturing scope in any way shape or form if it costs the aggregate DALPA+DCI pilot group jobs and income to ALPA. That's the problem.

I think lowering expectations is insurance against a failure. I think playing chess means you don't reveal your first 10 moves so I understand some silence although I don't see enough to make me believe what I said is the case.

 

I dont think anybody sees enough to be sure that DALPA is making a restoration case. I do want to go to one of the MEC road shows, but it doesn't currently fit my schedule. There have been hints of "hope" from those road shows, but to my knowledge, no one has posted notes.