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 They no longer represent their employee group.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?)