kiteflyer

5 more days. Then we'll all move on.

If it passes, you can resume moderating excessive underboob.

(I can't wait!!!-for both)

scambo1

50 seaters are going away anyway.

Pilots are going to retire anyway.

Inflation tracking bankruptcy payrates.

Reserve concessions.

717 SNB replacement aircraft have been in the works for a long while.

More...

What exactly did DALPA extract that was so miraculous or already in the works.

scambo1

I'm a DALS on a fenced jet...This has to be one of the silliest, intelligence insulting, N vs S inflammatory posts I have read...and for what? To try to push through a lame TA and circle the wagons around the MEC...Let the chips fall where they may.

acl65pilot

Not sure what you are asking, but I assume with the items fixed. That said, probably in the lower 70's.
When now?

If the company has a "Plan B", how close does that plan come in value to "Plan A"?[/quote]
Plan B for the company is more expensive than plan A and not by a little bit.
Nope. As I said before, any new plan in the short term still would have the scope modifications in it. Its the sole reason for DAL's motivation to negotiate early. They need this restructured to go forward with other plans. We as pilots need to understand that or prepare for a long drawn out negotiations. I stated that a true road map wrt to SJS limits, non compliance wording, ratio rolling averages, and check valves would work with that, more general language with JV's, Sole Domestic alliance language outside of the JV language, and specifically in the RJET coutout, would be simple fixes that shored up the flanks and did not effect the business plan.
On pay, it must go up from where is at, and needs to not be "restoration" but something that is truly patterning.
Work rules changes concern me, but if they are a must, make the RSV max ALV+7.5 to come in line with max a regular line holder could be on the hook for in the LCW.
Make the commuting policy contractual.
Change Reroute
Add 1% to DC in the first bump, amendable date, and DOS+1.
Clean up the concerns in sick time
A few other items but of less importance to this group

For who? Its cleaning up the items that LOA's have not been able to do. That is what Section 6 is for.

I'll say this, if your belief that a fix is easy is not reason for voting against the deal, what real world plan do you have? That's in a real world where there's two parties to a negotiation and we're not just typing on our keyboards.
What is the cost per year of your proposed fixes?[/quote[
I stated a top end.
I assume 100% yes on the MEC and easily pass the pilot group allowing the pilot group to row in concert with the company when it comes to mergers, acquisitions, and regulatory issues coming our way. Constructive engagement worked both ways.

Repeat? My point is to get the pilot group to see value in their sacrifices, and this TA does not do that. If the vote is over 65% in favor I am wrong, and I am ok with that. If its less, than many pilots, even yes voters that are just taking the pay and running, do not see this as the added value expected after a decade or contraction et al.

Nope, plan A would still be cheaper. I am not that dumb. Plan A is much more preferred by the company and it allows them to have many more options.

If this is turned down, and I was a MEC negotiator or Rep, I would have two proposals ready. One that is contractually required; the traditional opener that is required to be exchanged 270 days prior to the amendable date. It would be in line with the contract survey, and not time valued at all. It would be costly. The second one would be the fixes, and significantly cheaper than the first, and quicker. It would imply the understanding of what the company needs now, but also state what needs to be fixed for unyielding support from the pilots going forward. It is not overplaying your hand in the least. It is getting the pilots what they wanted but rationalizing it within the direction of the MEC.

acl65pilot

You ever think that the qualifier on his e-mail was so that DPA could not use a pro ALPA pilots con position to further their agenda? Maybe they are sick of it too.

SailorJerry

There's a time and place for this type of thing. It's in closed session at an MEC meeting and an issue that's handled in private. Being the first one to jump and make something public doesn't make it true. That's not of the rocking chair mindset. That's the "best for the greater good" mindset. Which mindset do you have?

Carl Spackler

The DTW reps have to deal with these accusations from the MEC admins all the time and it's sad. It's used to marginalize views as opposed to listening to them.

For the record, the DTW reps are all against DPA or any other attempt at an in-house union. That's one of the things I disagree with them on. Also, your blatant attempt at North versus South divisiveness is shamefully inaccurate given the largest number of DPA cards is from the ATLANTA base.

Carl

Carl Spackler

If I could post Tom's letter, you'd see that he didn't attack anyone. He simply stated exactly where the MEC admin's road show is producing false information. That's not only his right, it's why we elected him. The MEC chairman works for Tom and the other reps...not the other way around. But I know this is a big cultural difference between the way our two groups ran their unions. Tim's letter however DID personally attack Tom, and that shouldn't have been done either publicly or privately.

It is Tom's duty to make facts public to his constituents. That's why we elected him...not to keep the truth hidden for the concept of MEC unity.

My mindset is one of wanting to know the truth. You said: "True or not" it shouldn't have been made public due to divisiveness. That's burying your head in the sand and setting yourself up for huge disappointment.

You may want a union where a single chairman drives the ship, but I don't. I want the truth...and I want it public.

Carl

80ktsClamp

You seriously can't be this obtuse....

If you read Tom's memo that he wanted posted on this site, his entire reasoning for not wanting it posted was because he had been quoted by the DPA.

bigbusdriver

I certainly did not try to make this a N/S thing and I'm sorry it came off that way.
What I referred to was individuals and I posed questions about possible common interests between individuals.
I never said "North pilots ____." or "South pilots ____."

But I think it's disingenuous to say TT didn't want to support the DPA, he just wanted to put out his letter.
I view that position along the lines of saying "Hey I really don't want a fire to start in here. Let's make sure there's no fires, OK? I really would hate to have a fire." ...all the while pouring gas on the living room carpet.