Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1744284)
We had a weight restriction that prohibited the operation of the E170/175 at DCI. JM was at the helm when we raised the weight in LOA46.
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 1744293)
He changed the definition of permitted aircraft from certificated to configured. A large concession.
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 1744292)
Except that LOA46 (JM Chairman) gave away the E170s.
|
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1744211)
Sometimes there's good reason to question that. But changing the subject is almost always due to the lack of ability to effectively debate the issue.
I disagree with that strategy regard of who does it. |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1744310)
I don't believe that there is ever a good reason to stop debating the issue. Sometimes, changing the subject (to DPA, in this case) may be nothing more than questioning the agenda of the other guy.
He responded as follows:
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1744033)
blah blah blah blah blah DPA blah blah blah blah
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 1744293)
He changed the definition of permitted aircraft from certificated to configured. A large concession.
Some scope clauses even have "below floor cargo capability" as a limiting factor. Certificated seats is an important metric, but if that's the only limit any company can just pay for paperwork to reduce the seat limits to what they want to install and get around it that way. That's why we need many restrictive ways to control it. C2012 had some scope concessions but one of the bright spots was including turboprops. We may never know if they would have gone down that road at some point at DCI, but they had the ability to have unlimited 70 seat props off list. Its still unlimtied 35 (or 37?) seat props, but that sucks a lot less and is less likely to happen. I expect absolutely zero relief in C2015 for any DCI outsourcing. No added certificated seat limits, actual seat numbers, weights, additional airframes or anything else raised or waived to provide them relief in any form. And I expect some tangible level of DCI reduction with, at the very least, some form of sunsetting to reduce the number of seats and airframes at DCI without allowing anything larger there ever. And that includes the bogus seperate certificate tricks and code share tricks with mainline sized "RJ's" at DCI carriers that have hundreds of albatross jets on firm order with no one to fly them for. That's not our problem; let them eat CapEx and debt and bleed RASM all over the floor. Its not our place to enable the regional CEO megalomaniacs. |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1743616)
For the record, I believe that Moak's constructive engagement strategy has generally put more money and time off into our pockets since 2005 when he was elected.
It has to be a comparative analysis doesn't it? Otherwise you'd be happy with a strategy of massive concessions in every other area of the contract, except pay and time off because it put more money and time off into our pockets. The real question is whether constructive engagement put the most into our pockets as compared to other strategies. That's the question that divides us. My opinion is that constructive engagement was proper as we staggered out of bankruptcy, but was/is totally improper as our labor/management partnership began to bear the financial fruit. It is at that time the strategy should have shifted to restoration. But it didn't. We stayed the course with constructive engagement. We are still below our pre-bankruptcy wages while every other employee group at Delta has been restored. Constructive engagement had its time and place, but it's no longer applicable.
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1743616)
At the same time, it seems clear that we will need to be significantly more aggressive this time around if we are to maximize our negotiating leverage for C2015. I continue to hear and read phrases such as "greatest contract in airline history." I look forward to seeing that contract.
Carl |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1744159)
Except we are clearly not "holding out."
|
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1743656)
Is it so much to ask for a few goals and a little leadership?
Say what you will about Captain Malone, but he had goals, he communicated and he led. All we hear is silence. RA communicates his goals. Why not benchmark the master? Make no mistake however that they believe in the exact same process that DAL88Driver has been espousing for years. DALPA proved it with DPA. DALPA and Mr. Moak set the objective of destroying DPA. Then they developed strategies to achieve the objective. Then they employed the tactics of funding the Special Committee to the tune of $100,000 plus to use any and all measures to achieve the objective. That's how it's done if you want to win something. ALPA has shown that they believe in and understand that time proven process. They are employing that exact same process with the future of our profession. We just don't know what their objective is because Moak's hallmark is to never let the truth out until its too late for you to change it. As a loyal Moak disciple, Tim Cannoll will be the exact same kind of ALPA president. Carl |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1743677)
but if waiting an indeterminate period of time to get what you call "restoration" is not acceptable to the group, then you better learn to accept that.
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1743677)
The statistically significant part of the group is probably more happy than the discontented vocal minority that frequents these boards, so they don't want to bother with the survey, so they don't and dALPA has to "beg" them to fill it out.
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1743677)
And I have my number as to what is acceptable to me, it probably doesn't match yours, and I am not willing to wait for your number to come true as are probably many others that have a vote who understand TVM.
Carl |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:33 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands