CMRoutlaw said:
Surplus,
Oh brother....I'd love to spend a few hours responding to this but it is my day off so I will try to be concise.
Thanks for your response. I don't mind telling you that it has gone a long way to helping me understand your true position. I am now able to agree with many of your ideas.
What I understand you to say is that you are leaning in the direction of making some type of new agreement, contingent on it going through the MEC and including the details that are needed for any contract change. I can live with that. Please note that I never said my answer was "no". In fact I said repeatedly that we should not, IMO, reject this proposal for the sake of rejecting it. I still believe that.
I sincerely hope your fears about the MEC rejecting this due to paranoia are not well founded. If I believed that they were I would strongly recommend replacing the MEC leadership post haste. The MEC must
lead the pilot group on the right path, however, in doing so it must also respond to the wishes of the pilot group. Arbitrary behavior is not acceptable and neither is lack of action.
However, bargaining in good faith does not mean that agreement will be reached. The pieces of the puzzle must fall into the right places.
What I want and expect the MEC to do is analyze the proposal carefully, make counter proposals that are reasonable and come up with a solution that offers sufficient guarantees that we are not giving up any part of our contract in exchange for assumptions or promises. In other words, the value we get in return must be very close to equaling the value that we give. Further,
if the company is unable to make good on its promises, then our contract must return completely to the status quo. In my opinion, that means we get ALL of the promised aircraft, not just a part of them, and we get a solid contractual assurance that what we do get cannot later be shifted to someone else.
As I have said earlier, I am willing to spend money to buy job security. If I do, then I expect to get job security. Growth alone is not job security. Growth can be here for a day then gone tomorrow. Job security is enduring. I also think, for what it's worth, that no-furlough clauses do NOT provide job security.
We agree that the Embraer product is a key ingredient. One of the things that bothers me most about the proposal is the vagueness with which that item was addressed by Mr. Butrell. If the EMB170 is "on the table" then he should come clean and say that it is.
Make the proposal contingent on that aircraft type and you change the entire picture. A commitment for more CR7's doesn't offer real growth, it just offers concessions for more CR7's. CR2's are cheap but you are right, their usefulness is waning fast. Meaningful growth does require larger aircraft. The Bombardier product, including the CR9, does not appear to be the best product.
I realize that Buttrell cannot guarantee that we will get the EMB170. However,
he can guarantee that if we don't, the contract will snap-back to the status quo. As I read it, that is not a part of his current proposal.
Half of your arguments against me here are based on your assumption that I want to accept Fred's proposal at face value. Hopefully I cleared that up and you understand that I assume this will be a rock solid agreement before it even comes to a vote.
OK, you've clarified and I do understand now. In that case I have no problem with your position, even if we do not agree completely on the details. You have as much right to your opinions as I have to mine and they are of equal value. I do not want you to be silent. I just want us all to stick together and I now think we're on the same page in that regard.
The real value of this deal is getting the E-170 on property. And to that point, I think we should do everything we can in order to gurantee that it's the E-170 and not more CL-70's.
If as you say the -170 is the "real value of this deal", then the EMB170 must be a part of the deal.
If it is not, then we would be buying something that we aren't getting. The current proposal makes no guarantee (to use your word) that the EMB170 is on the table. I agree with you that it is not the same as the CR7, regardless of what other captains may think.
Make the offer contingent on the addition of 25 EMB170's and you've got my attention. Take it out of the picture and I'll still listen to what you have to say but my hearing won't be nearly as keen.
Look at this objectively.
We are being asked to remain at 2004 pay rates until 2010. That is not one year, it is 6 years. Where did I get 2010? Easy; move the amendable date to 2007 plus 3 years to negotiate a new deal = 2010. IF inflation stays at its current rate (a big IF) that means we will lose about 18% of the buying power of our money over that time, plus the value of our 6/22/05 scheduled raise. That's a lot of money. If I'm going to make that kind of an investment, I want something in exchange. A promise or a maybe is not enough! Performance Pay doesn't even come close.
I'm not paranoid, I don't have any conspiracy theories, I've already put the strike behind me, and I don't see management as "the enemy". Neverthless,
I want real value in exchange for my investment. I think you should as well. In fact I think we ALL should, and if that is not being offered then I don't really want to play this game.
Up to now, the proposal as written does not appear to offer that value. The beverage needs more sugar, and 25 of the EMB170, in writing, might go a long way.
What is "good for DCI" (your words) is not necessarily good for Comair pilots. Call me selfish if you want but my interest does not lie in what is good for DCI. It lies in what is good for Comair pilots. It is OUR future that concerns me, not the future of DCI (which includes CHQ and SKYW and whomever comes next). The "portfolio" is as much a detriment to this "deal" as anything else. I cannot avoid noting that the author of the "portfolio" is the author of the "proposal".
Please note that I deliberately omitted ASA. They're in the same boat that we are and I would like to row with them, not against them.
If Fred is sincere and the deal goes through as advertised, yes it would be good for me but I think it would be just as good for you as well. >>> And no, I'm not accepting his proposal at face value, I'm simply trying to rally the troops who want to be open-minded and optimistic about our future. Maybe that's devisive but that's democracy.
I'm quite willing to be open-minded and I also want to be optimistic. At face value, this proposal does not engender much optimism for me. It might be a light at the end of the tunnel but it might also be a train. I need to know which.
I'm very pleased to learn that you're not accepting the proposal at face value. That alleviates the majority of my concerns about what you said earlier. I'm not willing to bet on whether Fred is sincere or not sincere. The deal itself and the guarantees it offers or does not offer will ultimately determine my decision. I can't base that decision on imagined sincerity, on promises, or on good faith. I have to base it on the contents of the final agreement.
Now that you've clarified your position, I no longer think you're divisive. If I misjudged you, I apologize. My judgement was based on what you wrote, which previously did not include the reasoning of your most recent post. Since I do not know you, the only measure I have of how you think is what you say.
In the final analysis this isn't about trust, it's about business. We will all benefit from a good deal. We will all suffer from a bad one. Let's hope for the best and see that we get a good one.
