DAL junior Pilots sold down the river by NEW MEC

[Turtle21]

I wasn't allowed to vote, and I would have voted NO.

Ah... You have identified the only thing that every ALPA pilot has in common across every ALPA carrier. It was either this or a national seniority list... ALPA decided the list was too hard so opted for this. :laugh:

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

I would like to point out that the LEC reps, and most certainly the fNWA reps, had NOTHING to do with this.

This is Moak's baby, plain and simple.

Nu

 

[General Lee]

Heyas,

I would like to point out that the LEC reps, and most certainly the fNWA reps, had NOTHING to do with this.

This is Moak's baby, plain and simple.

Nu

You are right, and don't blame FDAL pilots for this either, there is NO way we would vote for that. Moak has some "splainin" to do.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[another cfii]

Moak is the one that signed the scope relief, plain and simple. Not Prater, even though I think the nationals are only good for sending out my $1000 magazines, and the safety decals.

When I was flying with a senior CA last year who was one of the original sponsor to toss Moak out pre-LOA19, I thought he was a little overboard, but now I'm ready to listen, and I will share that with the CA i'll fly with, and i hope all of us FOs would do the same. Some of the CA here are so dense that all they care is a beer at the end of the day, and everything's kosher. A lot of them have been used to the post-bk work rules that they're willing to bend backward to save their precious jobs.

I'd rather get furloughed tomorrow, sit n whine for the next 6 years on FI, than seeing a grim future ahead of all 12k of us.

 

[Superpilot92]

I believe this currently group of ALPA reps have run their course. They no longer represent their employee group.

Anyone with me?

I agree 100% and we need everyone to start letting their voices be heard. This is a joke and we dont need leaders that dont stand up to managements continued attempt at outsourcing our jobs. If this Union wont represent the pilot group then its time for a new union. Scope relief does nothing but degrade our industry and our pay. uke:

 

[FDJ2]

Heyas,

I would like to point out that the LEC reps, and most certainly the fNWA reps, had NOTHING to do with this.

This is Moak's baby, plain and simple.

Nu

Of the 153 RJs configured with over 50 seats, 90 were a product of the fNWA PWA, so I wouldn't single out fNWA reps as having a better track record on 51-76 seat RJs or "most certainly" less accountable than fDAL reps. That being said, the LEC reps, whether fDAL or fNWA are acountable for the actions of the MEC.

This isn't scope relief, the language in our contract hasn't changed. The issue is over interpretation of the language in our contract. Specifically 1.b.40.e.

"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."

The company believes that they are incompliance with the PWA and can have 156 RJs configured with 51-76 seats based on the the high water mark of the fleet size, in their view, once a certain number of 51-76 seat RJs are authorized, that number can not be reduced. ALPA's position was that the number authorized was dependent on the fleet size when the aircraft begin service and it is from that point that the number can not be reduced.

That in a nutshell was the dispute. I obviously favor ALPA's interpretation and have confidence in it, but then again I felt we had a strong case in our force majeure/furlough case in 2001. Two options, one choice. Take it to an arbitrator, like we did with our furlough grievance and SLI, or find a negotiated settlement.

The argument is made by some that ALPA gave the company everything it wanted in the settlement, however, that is only true if you believe that our current mainline fleet of 753 aircraft, will never exceed 767. Some may hold that pessimistic view, I don't. Not only do I believe we will be one of the few large carriers to emerge from this recession without a furlough, possibly due to our enhanced furlough protection which is not subject to FM, but I also believe it is quite possible that we will have over 767 mainline aircraft once we get through this recession. If you think that's absurd, just think back about three and a half years ago, when we were in BK, flying for an insolvent carrier, with over 1,300 furloughed pilots, the suggestion than, that not only would we recall every pilot in the next three years, but we would hire nearly 800 more, double our international capacity, have scheduled deliveries that would double our 777 fleet all while working for viable airline also seemed absurd.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

You all need to be rid of Moak AND his cronies like yesterday. Not just talk on a msg board, but actually showing up to meetings and doing it (even on your day off).

What was this I read somewhere on ALPC that Bastian is Moak's "partner" for some walk in Moak's hometown (MSY)???? Is that %^& for REAL????

Sounds like some outspoken FNWA guys with backbones (not the former leaders) are needed to clear the union of any mgt lackeys, INSANE

It is also insane, with you guys worrying about furloughs, not only is this backstabbing going on, but it is seen as acceptable for ANYONE to be picking up overtime right now???????

Overtime equals to hours that comprise MORE (or your junior pilots') JOBS. WTF is happening to this industry here pilots now think this is acceptable ever???????????

Yeah, pick up overtime for YOURSELF so you can still make LESS than you SHOULD BE making right now..people just don't get it whatsoever.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

FDJ, I agree that we are doing well, but that does not mean that we need to sell out this scope. I know we see differently on what Moak did. I believe that many of us see differently than you do. I see this as Moak acting alone. I understand the New MEC not knowing about this. It was filed prior to DCC, but they should have been read in. There are just so many major issues on the way this was done.
My question to you is, when the company again violates this what are we as a union going to do? The only answer better be to pull the seats out, or bring them to mainline.
This furlough protection has enough holes it, and a sleeze trial attonrey could find em. Moak even told a good friend of mine that he knew it( furlough protection) was worthless, but it made those junior feel better. What is with that? We are the ones that are best educated on this subject and do not want this type of protection at the cost of more large RJ's at DCI. It is quite simple. If this is a mid term contract improvement, I am not impressed.

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ, I agree that we are doing well, but that does not mean that we need to sell out this scope.

This is a settlement of a grievance on the interpretation of our existing scope language. Not a change in our scope language. To conclude that this is a sell out you have to conclude that there can be no other interpretation of our existing scope language than ALPA's. Yes it is a compromise, all settlements are. No, it doesn't make me happy that we are in this position. Perhaps the politically more expedient route would have been to give the arbitrator the ball and absolve the MEC of any accountability for the outcome, but I'm not convinced that that would have been the best road forward.

My question to you is, when the company again violates this what are we as a union going to do? The only answer better be to pull the seats out, or bring them to mainline.

Remember, it's only a violation if you accept ALPA's interpretation as the only plausible interpretation. I think the language is quite clear from this day forward. The company has agreed to the ALPA interpretation from this day forward on how we determine how many 76 seaters are permitted. Not much wiggle room for the company. To answer your question, if we revisit this issue, I see no other recourse than to insist that the seats be removed.

This furlough protection has enough holes it, and a sleeze trial attonrey could find em. Moak even told a good friend of mine that he knew it( furlough protection) was worthless, but it made those junior feel better.

Be more specific please. What holes do you see in the furlough protection that was just negotiated?

What is with that? We are the ones that are best educated on this subject and do not want this type of protection at the cost of more large RJ's at DCI. It is quite simple. If this is a mid term contract improvement, I am not impressed.

I don't see this as a mid term contract improvement, it's a settlement of a grievance.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Does it specifiy which 6 seats are removed? Do they have to come from first class (the ones that hurt?)

 

[ACL65PILOT]

My point is that, if this is what we have to look forward to as a mid-contract improvement, I am quite worried.
FDJ, do you see this as a true gain by this group? I do not. Many of my peers do not either.

There are just major issues with this. Do you admit that?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Does it specifiy which 6 seats are removed? Do they have to come from first class (the ones that hurt?)

I do not think so. As I read it they can take any six seats out of these 71-76 seat airframes.
Fact is that they are initially blocked off. They have time to take them out. I would guess that they will not be sold. but the gate agents would use them in an oversold situation. (gives DAL time to work a work around with DALPA, IMHO)

 

[Whine Lover]

" synergies."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Stop it General you're killing me here...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Certainly you know that "synergies" is a Management term meaning: " We are planning to f-ck you hard in the long run, but we'll make it seem like a good idea at the time."

Right?

 

[mfliin]

OK for my first post ever. It's time to get off the sidelines....I'm ready to recall my union reps.
I have been watching my quality of life slip away for the past 2 years. Where's the DFR here? AND I have to pay my union(dues assessment) so that I can sue them over the JPWA???? WTF over. The best thing to come out of this merger will (one day) be the back-bone of the NWA group. Sorry for the rant...

 

[FDJ2]

My point is that, if this is what we have to look forward to as a mid-contract improvement, I am quite worried.
FDJ, do you see this as a true gain by this group? I do not. Many of my peers do not either.

There are just major issues with this. Do you admit that?

No, I don't see this as a true gain, nor do I see this as a major change in scope. It's a compromise/settlement.

76 seaters are capped at 153 until we get above 767 mainline jets, that's less than a 2% increase in mainline jets. Considering that we are in the middle of a major recession, a 2% increase in mainline aircraft from what we have today is not inconceiveable once we emerge from this economic environment. I think we'll see those 767 mainline jets before we see the 154th 76 seater. Do I like it? NO! But the sky isn't falling either.

Could this have been handled better? YES. Would the end result have been the same? Probably.

Just some info on RJ's, while we have started operating many more 76 seaters in 2008, we also dumped 120 RJs in 2008. And while the 76 seaters are capped at 153 in 2009 or until we have 767 mainline jets, we'll continue to dump many many more RJs this year. The company is authorized 255 70/76 seaters, they have 224 with no more 76 seaters scheduled for delivery above the 153rd.

 

[SFR]

sold down the river? is that the chatahoochie?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

FDJ2,

The fact is that the union apparently doesn't understand that the sentiment and desire of the pilot group is no further scope relief is wanted (this is scope relief, no matter how you spin it) and must be fought tooth and nail!

These big RJs are our replacements...they have a first class, they have long range, and they aren't a sardine can like a CRJ-200.

I would have rather it have been fought tooth and nail and lost in arbitration than have just given in and gotten worthless "furlough protection."

Couldn't Moak have at least fought to bring everyone under the 9/11 "furlough protection?"

Even after all this further explaination and clarification from the union... I'm even more ticked off at them than I was initially. Even the CA I'm flying with on this trip spent around half of the 4 hour leg yesterday ranting about this latest move of idiocy. ...and we all know when it ticks off even the senior widebody guys, they've really screwed up.



As I wrote to my rep....maybe one day when we are all out of a job and every Delta airplane has an "Operated by ____ Airlines" on the side of it, the union will finally understand that things have long since been allowed to slide too far.


Scope is by far the most important issue with airline labor today...

 

[ACL65PILOT]

No, I don't see this as a true gain, nor do I see this as a major change in scope. It's a compromise/settlement.

76 seaters are capped at 153 until we get above 767 mainline jets, that's less than a 2% increase in mainline jets. Considering that we are in the middle of a major recession, a 2% increase in mainline aircraft from what we have today is not inconceiveable once we emerge from this economic environment. I think we'll see those 767 mainline jets before we see the 154th 76 seater. Do I like it? NO! But the sky isn't falling either.

Could this have been handled better? YES. Would the end result have been the same? Probably.

Just some info on RJ's, while we have started operating many more 76 seaters in 2008, we also dumped 120 RJs in 2008. And while the 76 seaters are capped at 153 in 2009 or until we have 767 mainline jets, we'll continue to dump many many more RJs this year. The company is authorized 255 70/76 seaters, they have 224 with no more 76 seaters scheduled for delivery above the 153rd.

I am quite glad that you admit that this could have been handled differently. That message needs to be told to OUR MEC and told quite loudly. Scope is no longer for sale. I do not care what we have to do to make it so, we are not willing to give up anymore than we already have. I thought that was clear, that is why this is so insulting to so many of us.
Does our MEC now understand that???!!

All I will say is that we better not see that 154th 76 seat jet on property before we see the 767th mainline jet. That is another direct violation of scope and this settlement. If that happens all of our fears will be validated.
I know what we are doing with the 50 seat DCI a/c. I also know that the pull down has been slowed down for the time being. I am glad to see that our guys in route management realize that these jets are not money makers. Yes, brand loyalty is dead, but people will not forgive you for bad service even if they pay 99 bucks round trip. It is the Quality that these jets bring. Problem, with the 76 seaters is that they are a good quality. In effect it is good that DAL has the possibility of making back some of its losses on DCI, but they sould be making it back on the mainline list. Not as some B or C scale.
Why do we see DCI as a good thing again??

I have watched over the last 15 years as DCI has grown. After 9-11 DCI grew to a huge operator of DAL branded flights. There are 7500 DCI pilots. We in effect shrunk mainline (pre merger) from 10500 to 6600 pilots. Parking the L15, MD-11, 732, and 727's. That right there is why DCI grew. In effect we had 4000 mainline jobs go do DCI in the last six years. Enough is enough.

 

[FBN0223]

deleted

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2: Thank you for your logical posts. You put up some very good information.

ACL65: Thank you for pushing for that information.

FDJ2 - is there any chance ALPA has got the economics wrong? Your use of the word RJ interchangeably for both a CRJ100, an E135 and a CRJ 900 or E175...it is a gross oversimplification and fails to recognize that the newest generation of these jets have better numbers on mainline routes than our equipment being replaced.

This outsourcing leaves our union fundamentally weaker than before, establishing a long term downward trend with lower highs and lower lows.

Can you address this concern? Thanks.