Immature Questions on Online "Chat With Ed"

The first part is true. There was no literal line to cross (see my above post). I chose not to perform struck work because I felt it was both the right thing to do, and the least I could do.
well I performed *zero* struck work and did not even have an authorization to do anything, yet still get the finger pointed right in my face while others, seem to get a pass (even though their, your union actually performed it)

The people watching from the terminal window were men I considered my friends. Not doing their job(s) was an easy choice to make.
thats right, your friends, sort of my point on another topic, the union, its like a click, they pick and choose.

the hypocritical part in all of this is simply.. when someone from AMFA holds a different standard for a Flight Attendant and then gives a free pass to someone else in IAM.

did your union hold a sympathy strike vote like our union? and if so what were the results?

our union held one, a vote and then never released the numbers, never authorized anything but still today some refuse or choose to look over that part.
 
I see you avoided the question.

I never cussed anyone out. For you to assume that speaks volumes. I simply walked the line for two weeks until my new job started, then walked on my days off (yes, I had two other jobs prior to my going on strike, I knew what was going to happen). I was at a small out station, and my description of the F/A's that reported for duty is spot on. Also, please show me where I blamed you for "our failed strike."

Were you hired in the lead up to the PFAA showdown?

It sounds like you were in the orientation sessions.

Just a curious question here Tech. How many times did AMFA support other union groups, when they went on strike? I'm talking about union-wide AMFA, not just at NWA.
 
well I performed *zero* struck work and did not even have an authorization to do anything, yet still get the finger pointed right in my face while others, seem to get a pass (even though their, your union actually performed it)

I hope you're not implying that somehow I made it through 8/05 unscathed... The actions of DePace (as well as every other union leader) set us all back 10 yrs. minimum.

NWA knew they could play one group off the other, and their diabolical plan worked perfectly. Ever meet Andy Roberts?


thats right, your friends, sort of my point on another topic, the union, its like a click, they pick and choose.

Pick and choose what? I was one man at one station who made a decision that ~roughly a dozen AMT's happened to agree with. The end. Full stop.

the hypocritical part in all of this is simply.. when someone from AMFA holds a different standard for a Flight Attendant and then gives a free pass to someone else in IAM.

Again, I would contend that PFAA (now AFA)-and every other union came out much better than the IAM.

did your union hold a sympathy strike vote like our union? and if so what were the results?

If they did, I missed it. To do so would've required DePace to make a stand, something that wasn't in his constitution. He was too busy playing the role of scorned lover and plotting revenge against AMFA to see the big picture. His diseased vision of boatloads of work secured for us never came to pass, and only served to make him look like a fool. Steenland et al played him for the fool he was. You fly through the hubs, right? How many ESE's you see up there cleaning turn flights? There's a reason he was voted out at the earliest opportunity.
 
I hope you're not implying that somehow I made it through 8/05 unscathed... The actions of DePace (as well as every other union leader) set us all back 10 yrs. minimum.
I am not implying anything, I was stating exactly what our position was at that time.
We performed zero struck work and had no legal authority to walk without authorization.

NWA knew they could play one group off the other, and their diabolical plan worked perfectly. Ever meet Andy Roberts?
some of us could see right through it.

they tried to play one group off the other.

Pick and choose what? I was one man at one station who made a decision that ~roughly a dozen AMT's happened to agree with. The end. Full stop.
that is correct. and when a man makes a decision he stands by it without pointing fingers.

a real man would take ownership of his personal actions.

Again, I would contend that PFAA (now AFA)-and every other union came out much better than the IAM.
no one came out ahead of anyone, it was all pointless when a buyout was offered in the end..
to satisfy the necessary job reductions.
That is clearly how it should have been approached from the beginning.

would have, could have, should have, it does not matter at this point.

If they did, I missed it. To do so would've required DePace to make a stand, something that wasn't in his constitution. He was too busy playing the role of scorned lover and plotting revenge against AMFA to see the big picture. His diseased vision of boatloads of work secured for us never came to pass, and only served to make him look like a fool. Steenland et al played him for the fool he was. You fly through the hubs, right? How many ESE's you see up there cleaning turn flights? There's a reason he was voted out at the earliest opportunity.
basically what you are saying regarding a vote...you just did not have one.
 
some of us could see right through it.

they tried to play one group off the other.


Try nothing. They did it, and the results speak for themselves.


that is correct. and when a man makes a decision he stands by it without pointing fingers.

a real man would take ownership of his personal actions.

Um, not sure where you're going here. Are you saying I didn't take ownership of my own actions?


no one came out ahead of anyone, it was all pointless when a buyout was offered in the end..
to satisfy the necessary job reductions.
That is clearly how it should have been approached from the beginning.

What is this mythical buyout you keep talking about?! We didn't have one, AMFA sure didn't, and as far as I know, you didn't either until quite awhile later. It wasn't on the table at the time.


basically what you are saying regarding a vote...you just did not have one.

I'm pretty sure that was what I said in the first sentence.
 
What is this mythical buyout you keep talking about?! We didn't have one, AMFA sure didn't, and as far as I know, you didn't either until quite awhile later.
there is not a mythical buyout.

there was one, and it was substancial.

I do not think it should have been attached to a Tentative Agreement.
 
When was it, then? I only remember ones for AFA & IAM coming much much later.
in the end of it all, they offered a buyout.

it did not just magically appear, if it was available at the end of the process, it could have been made available at the beginning, is the point I am trying to make.

instead of the Union running around in circles and going on about..

"O.M.G.!! they want to outsource us all to the foreign nationals"

and didnt buy every line they threw out there, maybe it could have been worked out sooner.

so many people were just focusing on what appeared to be the bluff.

that is how I saw it, a bluff.
 
The AMFA has never crossed any picket line.

Look it up.

So , hypothectically speaking, if a flight attendant group from airline A went on strike, the mechanics , represented by AMFA and working for airline A, did not go to work then ?

And, has that scenario ever happened in the real world ?
 
So , hypothectically speaking, if a flight attendant group from airline A went on strike, the mechanics , represented by AMFA and working for airline A, did not go to work then ?

And, has that scenario ever happened in the real world ?


The AMFA has had language in EVERY contract that its members are not required to cross any legal picket line.

FWIW the IAM ramp employees struck at Ozark and the AMFA mechanics HONORED that picket line.
So the answer to your question is yes.
 
Some colleagues and I joined our first "Chat With Ed" (online chat with Ed Bastian) this morning. It was a moderated forum, so I assumed the questions presented would be relevant to issues facing Delta and its staff. My assumption was wrong.

My group submitted a question asking why, with the new health plan administrator, there is not one in-network doctor or hospital in my city of nearly a quarter million people and what was being done to remedy the situation. The nearest in-network hospital is a small town hospital 25 miles away.

While we waited for our question to be presented, we saw a variety of very childish questions that were approved by the moderator and posted for Ed to answer. Here are two examples that stuck with me:

  • Can we get Brett Favre to sponsor Delta in the Twin Cities? I'd gladly give up part of my salary to pay for it.

    Ed, do you drink beer, wine, or hard liquor?

Meanwhile, our question about the health insurance was ignored. The whole thing was so offensive and a waste of time and company resources. I'd like to hear other opinions on this.

This whole thing has gotten way off track and onto a union tyrade. I'm sad the forum nazis havent gotten involved. First of all the chat is a general chat forum. There is no specific track. If you have a question so involved in a specified field such as medical coverage, your question should be directed to your supervisor. Your supervisor should either answer your question or direct you to your HR representative. This is called the chain of command. The chat is just generalized. Senior management doesn't have all answers to specific questions in front of them They can however direct you to the people who they have empowered to have those answers. If Ed did answer this question without facts in front of him and said anything wrong, believe me, he would be labeled a aliar by most in here. You can't possibly believe he could have all facts of all questions in front of him.
Generalized questions such as the direction of the company can be answered. Yes the briefs or boxers could be to, although you would probably be ignored for that juvenile question.
When asking a question in the chat, think about what you are asking, whom you are asking and how many people are asking in the forum.
Get a grip people! this is not a union discussion.
 
This whole thing has gotten way off track and onto a union tyrade. I'm sad the forum nazis havent gotten involved. First of all the chat is a general chat forum. There is no specific track.
If there is no specific track in a chat, and the "topic" is a chat, there will not be a specific topic on this thread, so a union tirade would actually be appropriate for discussion.
 
If there is no specific track in a chat, and the "topic" is a chat, there will not be a specific topic on this thread, so a union tirade would actually be appropriate for discussion.
How can you possibly justify a topic of "Chat With Ed" as being any where close to a union discussion? Please, let's get back on subject.
 
How can you possibly justify a topic of "Chat With Ed" as being any where close to a union discussion? Please, let's get back on subject.
well!

this is not the chat with you know who.

and furthermore,

if the Flight Attendants hand DL over to the Union..

believe me there will be plenty of Company and Union discussions going on for years...

(or should I just buy the idea.. we are getting an industry leading contract as promised a few months after the election?)