Originally Posted by Check Essential

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.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

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.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

We like to taunt.

Originally Posted by FlighTimeBarbie

Select quotes and Summary of 23 October Chairman's Letter:

"The Delta MEC...democratic organization."

"These (recall) proceedings...are an indication of the strength of our union and the well-being of our democratic process."

"Our internal processes are strong, the talents of our volunteer base are unmatched..." (see photo above) ..."make gains by working together."

"successful"
"success"
"success"
"success"

!

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.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Roberts leaving:

Kingsley Roberts thanked all who were present. He had nothing but very kind and measured words of thanks as he said goodbye. When he was done, Vice Chair Jim Van Sickle, respectfully asked us all to please excuse Kingsley Roberts.

ALL in the room stood and applauded Kingsley Roberts, who then left his Chair with dignity and with a show of respect from EVERYONE in attendance. He was met by a few to shake his hand as he walked over to pick up his overnight kit, and then he left. One man, I believe he was a regular line pilot on the far side of the room where Roberts exited, remained standing until Kingsley was no longer in the room . . . it was one of those “very long few minutes” that we all have had. I saw that as a real tribute, one not from an elected rep, he got those, not from a committee member, got those too, and not from a staff person, but from just a plain ordinary line pilot. A fitting tribute.

Back to the meeting, the other votes were anti-climactic. All others were not recalled, some by more margins than others and it appeared to be merely and exercise to end the meeting. There was only one question was asked by Rep Bartell of each during the following recall discussions.

Bartell: In the future, will you please explain how you would handle and report any evidence that a member of the MEC administration has given this governing body misleading information?

Each answered satisfactorily to the questioner, and the votes were taken in turn.

Meeting adjourned after the last vote.

Originally Posted by fencethis

I wish I had seen this before logging into the DPA site to read it. There's another few threads on the DPA forum that were allegedly written by both DTW council reps.

This is attributed as a quote from the Captain rep: "In response, and believing the OM/Moak allies are the problem, 9 MEC members, including us the C20 reps, filed to recall the other 3 officers."

It sounds like he is saying the reason they asked to recall the other 3 was because of some sort of group retaliation because they believe the other members of the mec are the problem?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I don't know, on the flip side of "just say no" would be "just say yes" to anything deemed a "final offer". That cannot be good either but if C2012 set any precedence is that we as pilots are never allowed to say no from this point forward if the NC approved it.

And the company knows that. They saw what the pilots were threatened with by their own union (years before another contract, say good bye to the 717, NMB would rule in favor of the company and fire us all tic, mass Dash 8-400Q orders, etc) and probably have zero fear the pilot group will ever say no if they can get it past the NC.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

Fair enough. I should have also added, "if you vote yes, at least have some idea of what would lead you to vote no on an agreement."

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I don't know, on the flip side of "just say no" would be "just say yes" to anything deemed a "final offer". That cannot be good either but if C2012 set any precedence is that we as pilots are never allowed to say no from this point forward if the NC approved it.

And the company knows that. They saw what the pilots were threatened with by their own union (years before another contract, say good bye to the 717, NMB would rule in favor of the company and fire us all tic, mass Dash 8-400Q orders, etc) and probably have zero fear the pilot group will ever say no if they can get it past the NC.