Recall of DAL MEC Officers
10-23-2013, 05:08 PM
#621
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
No. But there needs to be some friction, a "shaping of the battlefield" to set us up for success. Moak and his disciples don't deliver that.
Minus the last sentence, no big argument here.
It's my opinion that the company has zero fear of DALPA walking out, or doing anything other than finding a way to herd us into supporting the company's timeline/objectives.
I would agree that the company has no fear of Dalpa walking out but probably not for the same reasons you do. I base my opinion on the probable outcome if the disagreement led to the NMB and what this "illustrious" body would do. Unfortunately I think this has a big impact on how Dalpa interacts with the company.
I think some confrontation is necessary to maximize gains at the table. The company has to know we're not afraid of picketing, taking our case to social media, etc, which would create leverage, as RA attempts to paint Delta as above any labor strife.
Agreed, some confrontation might be necessary. I don't think Dalpa is afraid of picketing if necessary. We have done that (informational etc. during contract 2001). This could show resolve and definitely apply pressure. Of course it's all dependent on the NMB and the POTUS if we can take it to the next step. Until THAT card is in play, I think our leverage is minimized. I don't agree that social media would necessarily increase leverage. The average joe is just not that interested or thinks of us already as highly paid prima donnas.
Minus the last sentence, no big argument here.
It's my opinion that the company has zero fear of DALPA walking out, or doing anything other than finding a way to herd us into supporting the company's timeline/objectives.
I would agree that the company has no fear of Dalpa walking out but probably not for the same reasons you do. I base my opinion on the probable outcome if the disagreement led to the NMB and what this "illustrious" body would do. Unfortunately I think this has a big impact on how Dalpa interacts with the company.
I think some confrontation is necessary to maximize gains at the table. The company has to know we're not afraid of picketing, taking our case to social media, etc, which would create leverage, as RA attempts to paint Delta as above any labor strife.
Agreed, some confrontation might be necessary. I don't think Dalpa is afraid of picketing if necessary. We have done that (informational etc. during contract 2001). This could show resolve and definitely apply pressure. Of course it's all dependent on the NMB and the POTUS if we can take it to the next step. Until THAT card is in play, I think our leverage is minimized. I don't agree that social media would necessarily increase leverage. The average joe is just not that interested or thinks of us already as highly paid prima donnas.
Denny
10-23-2013, 05:44 PM
#622
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
But Moak gets that things have changed, and he is dealing with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.
In terms of buying power, we are currently making ~32% less than we used to. In Moak's world, this means things have changed... permanently. Pilots make significantly less than we used to. A 42% cut requires a 73% increase on day one (more as inflation marches on). The kinds of increases it would take to recover our buying power to what it was in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's are "unreasonable" and impossible to achieve. Therefore, we have to accept bankruptcy as a reset, establishing a new baseline from which we can only expect "reasonable" increases. Moak and his disciples gave up from the get go on restoring this profession. They think they're being "realistic." And in a way, they are... as they have helped to create a self fulfilling prophecy.
I was done with ALPA the moment it became clear to me they had surrendered on my behalf. That was about 8 years ago. The big airline bankruptcies in the early/mid 2000's were the worst thing to ever happen to our profession. IMO, Moak and his disciples are a close second.
10-23-2013, 06:57 PM
#623
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,397
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
He's dealing with the world as he thinks it is. Here's an example of something that has "changed" in the world according to Moak (and his disciples):
In terms of buying power, we are currently making ~32% less than we used to. In Moak's world, this means things have changed... permanently. Pilots make significantly less than we used to. A 42% cut requires a 73% increase on day one (more as inflation marches on). The kinds of increases it would take to recover our buying power to what it was in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's are "unreasonable" and impossible to achieve. Therefore, we have to accept bankruptcy as a reset, establishing a new baseline from which we can only expect "reasonable" increases. Moak and his disciples gave up from the get go on restoring this profession. They think they're being "realistic." And in a way, they are... as they have helped to create a self fulfilling prophecy.
I was done with ALPA the moment it became clear to me they had surrendered on my behalf. That was about 8 years ago. The big airline bankruptcies in the early/mid 2000's were the worst thing to ever happen to our profession. IMO, Moak and his disciples are a close second.
In terms of buying power, we are currently making ~32% less than we used to. In Moak's world, this means things have changed... permanently. Pilots make significantly less than we used to. A 42% cut requires a 73% increase on day one (more as inflation marches on). The kinds of increases it would take to recover our buying power to what it was in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's are "unreasonable" and impossible to achieve. Therefore, we have to accept bankruptcy as a reset, establishing a new baseline from which we can only expect "reasonable" increases. Moak and his disciples gave up from the get go on restoring this profession. They think they're being "realistic." And in a way, they are... as they have helped to create a self fulfilling prophecy.
I was done with ALPA the moment it became clear to me they had surrendered on my behalf. That was about 8 years ago. The big airline bankruptcies in the early/mid 2000's were the worst thing to ever happen to our profession. IMO, Moak and his disciples are a close second.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
10-23-2013, 07:25 PM
#624
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I get the math. Do you want the failed APA policy of stick-fingers-in-ears and demand the moon, or do you get some progress with an endless series of smaller gains? Apparently you think that if we fight the good fight, accept ZERO gains for years and years, then miraculously get a 30% raise (2-3 years after the amenable date of a contract) we have somehow "won" even though the end result is no better than several years straight of 3-5% raises.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
10-23-2013, 09:10 PM
#625
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I get the math. Do you want the failed APA policy of stick-fingers-in-ears and demand the moon, or do you get some progress with an endless series of smaller gains? Apparently you think that if we fight the good fight, accept ZERO gains for years and years, then miraculously get a 30% raise (2-3 years after the amenable date of a contract) we have somehow "won" even though the end result is no better than several years straight of 3-5% raises.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
10-24-2013, 02:03 AM
#626
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
I was done with ALPA the moment it became clear to me they had surrendered on my behalf. That was about 8 years ago. The big airline bankruptcies in the early/mid 2000's were the worst thing to ever happen to our profession. IMO, Moak and his disciples are a close second.
10-24-2013, 03:34 AM
#627
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: A350
Posts: 629
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I get the math. Do you want the failed APA policy of stick-fingers-in-ears and demand the moon, or do you get some progress with an endless series of smaller gains? Apparently you think that if we fight the good fight, accept ZERO gains for years and years, then miraculously get a 30% raise (2-3 years after the amenable date of a contract) we have somehow "won" even though the end result is no better than several years straight of 3-5% raises.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
10-24-2013, 04:35 AM
#628
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I get the math. Do you want the failed APA policy of stick-fingers-in-ears and demand the moon, or do you get some progress with an endless series of smaller gains? Apparently you think that if we fight the good fight, accept ZERO gains for years and years, then miraculously get a 30% raise (2-3 years after the amenable date of a contract) we have somehow "won" even though the end result is no better than several years straight of 3-5% raises.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
10-24-2013, 05:56 AM
#629
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
I'm tired of ALPA pointing at them as the reason we can't make contract gains.
We shouldn't even pay attention to the NMB anymore. OK, they've made it illegal to ever have an old fashioned full scale strike. I get it.
We need to find some new and creative (but still legal) methods of putting pressure on management in order to achieve our contractual needs. Social media, informational picketing, whatever. There are a thousand ways.
One of those ways is not signing all these LOAs and MOUs that solve problems for management yet extract very little in return. We need more recognition of our contributions.
Constructive engagement has to be a two way street. Especially in times of record profits.
We don't have to be in full NMB Section 6 strike mode with a total shutdown of the company being our only leverage. We can have smaller "strikes". Narita scope for example. Or FAR 117 for another example.
If management wants to make our scheduling and duty rig language more compliant with the new law then they need to restore a bit more of what we lost over the last decade. Otherwise we walk away and let them figure it out on their own.
People will complain that being uncooperative, disruptive and not "constructive" only hurts the company's profitability and that is bad for us in the long term. Those are the same people who tell us the APA approach can't work because the NMB will never allow a major airline strike. Well, he's our chance to have a very small "strike" and it doesn't require the NMB's permission.
We've been constructive. We're out of bankruptcy. The danger has passed. Delta Air Lines is rolling in cash. A large chunk of that money is our former pay and pensions. We need to get some back. NOW! Its Delta's turn to be constructive.
What we would be asking for is not unreasonable. We're talking about basic fairness here.
We made ENORMOUS sacrifices in bankruptcy and 4,8,3,3 while appreciated, just didn't address that.
Last edited by Check Essential; 10-24-2013 at 06:14 AM.
10-24-2013, 06:09 AM
#630
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I get the math. Do you want the failed APA policy of stick-fingers-in-ears and demand the moon, or do you get some progress with an endless series of smaller gains? Apparently you think that if we fight the good fight, accept ZERO gains for years and years, then miraculously get a 30% raise (2-3 years after the amenable date of a contract) we have somehow "won" even though the end result is no better than several years straight of 3-5% raises.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
Yes, I get the math. I get the 32% pay cut, followed by another 14% pay cut (completely unnecessary) and termination of our pension. I also get that C2K, now treated as holy gospel on these boards, only passed 70/30.
We have had lots and lots of improvements the past few years, though none of them scream "wow look at me!" I personally like a lot of them--many of which we didn't have during C2K, and we certainly didn't have back in the "good ol' days" when "a captain could buy a Cadillac with a month's salary" (really, do we need to go to the negotiating table with that ridiculous 70's era canard?). Things like bidding for CQ, positive space for deviating from DH on either end of a trip, crew meals, the jumpseat (which we had during C2K, but didn't get until 1996), vacation slide, etc.
None of these makes up for the loss of $$ we have all had to deal with. Last time I checked the entire industry took it in the shorts after 9/11. Among the "legacy" carriers we are the only ones who have made any progress, and any progress the UCALs and AAs of the world have made has been because they modeled us, not because they took a divergent track from us.
To all the Moak-haters out there, I suppose including you, I want to hear one concrete proposal where "just say no" gets us more than "constructive engagement." If you can convince me otherwise, I might even take your side. I just haven't seen any evidence that it works, not in a long long time.
I'm neither a huge fan of the current "constructive engagement" track where we never confront or oppose the company, nor the "screw you, pay me more" one. But at least the first approach has yielded us some results, while approach two only works in internet message-board-land.
I do know that the current mega-profits we are making are a good thing (albeit subsidized by our too-low salaries) and I hope all of us are prepared to put some serious pressure on our LEC reps who will then put serious pressure on our negotiating committee to secure significant gains.
Again, I'm not afraid to say "no" or even walk out (though we all know the NMB will take ages to allow that to happen, if ever). It's not even personal, it is all business. But if you are always prepared to vote "no" at least have an idea of what you would vote "yes" for.
You say you are not afraid to vote no and that people should at least have an idea of what they would vote "yes" for. I think everyone can agree with that. The big question is exactly where one draws that line. I look at it in terms of objective... i.e. does the agreement make significant gains toward my objective of restoration within a reasonable time frame? Does the agreement (and the way we went about getting the agreement) establish that we are focused and intent on restoring our profession and our careers? Have we made that clear to all concerned parties?
Yes, I am fully aware of what has and has not happened at AMR. I'm also fully aware that AMR and APA have a very different relationship and history from what DAL and DALPA have. I'm also aware that AMR's financial situation has been quite different from Delta's during the time period where APA was trying to make significant progress toward restoration. I think APA had the right idea in terms of objective but the timing and the dynamics of the culture at AMR made it too difficult if not impossible. Does that mean they should just give up and quit trying to achieve restoration? Does it mean WE should??
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
