DAL junior Pilots sold down the river by NEW MEC

[Fly4hire]

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.

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

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.

First, despite the established Grievance Settlement Process, there was nothing to prevent Moak from taking it to the MEC. If it was such a good deal why not run it past the voting members of the MEC? It might have made quite a statement if the entire MEC had said hell no.

Second it allows delivery of acft that would have put us over 120, but were not all present. This was major leverage to force those acft to be delivered as a 70 seater, and we pissed it away.

Grievance resolution usually involves a cease and desist and an award for the violation -we gave them $%$@# permission to add airframes not yet on the property in exchange for a very flimsy NF clause.

Third, if, as the Contract Awareness memo stated:

While the Association feels confident that our interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e. is correct,

Then why not take it to arbitration and let the judge decide?

there always remain several elements of risk whenever an issue is decided through arbitration.

Wahhhh....my vagina hurts...this from a our highly touted former Marine Fighter Pilot MEC Ch? There's risk every time we take off and land. Better stay in bed.....

 

[FDJ2]

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."

It might feel good to go down fighting, but does that really serve the interests of the pilot group? The ramifications of codifying the company's interpretation of our scope clause could potentially be more detrimental to the pilot group than reaching a negotiated settlement which grandfathers what they have coming up to 153, but codifies our interpretation of our scope clause into the future.

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

He essentially did. It's not a no furlough clause subject to force majeure, it's a powerful economic penalty if any DAL pilot is furloughed. Some say it's chocked full of wholes, yet no one can point to the wholes.

I absolutely understand the DALPA "third rail" which is scope relief, but it is not spin to point out that there was no change in our scope language and that there can be legitimate disagreements over contractual language. That's the nature of all grievances.

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2:

I posted to you on the previous page and I hope you'll answer. Also, what is the view on Compass? Do we want them on the Delta list? Waiting for the Company to ask?

 

[scarlet]

This is what ALPA has done for all airlines=NOTHING !

And to think Airtran pilots want ALPA??? Why 100-200 guys think ALPA is king. Ask ASA,Comair,TWA,Pinnancle,USAir, and the list continues. CAL contract??? ALL a BIG JOKE !!!

 

[FDJ2]

First, despite the established Grievance Settlement Process, there was nothing to prevent Moak from taking it to the MEC. If it was such a good deal why not run it past the voting members of the MEC? It might have made quite a statement if the entire MEC had said hell no.

It could have been handled differently, but that doesn't mean the result would have been different.

Second it allows delivery of acft that would have put us over 120, but were not all present. This was major leverage to force those acft to be delivered as a 70 seater, and we pissed it away.

The limit was not 120 aircraft at DCC. 120 was the starting point based on the number of aircraft in the fleet above 440+N. At DCC DAL had 444 aircraft, which under ALPA's interpretation authorized the company to put 132 76 seaters into service at DCC, the company however interpretted the limit to be based on the high water mark, ref. paragraph e. of the applicable scope section, Under the company's interpretation they were able to capture the number of 76 seaters based on Delta's fleet in March 08 when they made their orders.

Grievance resolution usually involves a cease and desist and an award for the violation -we gave them $%$@# permission to add airframes not yet on the property in exchange for a very flimsy NF clause.

That depends on the grievance and the award.

Third, if, as the Contract Awareness memo stated:

Then why not take it to arbitration and let the judge decide?

Ask the AAA pilots. I'm sure many fNWA pilots were confident in DOH.

 

[Morning Wood]

Whats even more sad is when you talk to pilots who fly these regional jets, they are even more excited that they are getting growth. But they dont realize that an the end they are destroying the very majors they want to work for. Actually can anyone on this board tell me of a furlough clause that actually has worked? I have looked over many airlines, many of them with similiar protections only to have it blown out of the water in court! Why cant a binding contract be upheld for major airline pilots? Do you guys truely believe its the fault of the unions or the courts? I think that if airlines could just be big holding companies they would given the chance. Outsource regional flying to XYZ airlines, then domestic to ABC airlines, and then codeshare via international with cheaper counterparts.

The pilots at the regional level have no more control over what airplanes or how many get operated than the pilots at mainline who are allowing it to happen.

 

[Fly4hire]

Then why not take it to arbitration and let the judge decide?

Ask the AAA pilots. I'm sure many fNWA pilots were confident in DOH.

Lame. Does this mean DALPA runs from all fights rather than risk getting a black eye?

Never mind the answer.....

 

[FDJ2]

Then why not take it to arbitration and let the judge decide?



Lame. Does this mean DALPA runs from all fights rather than risk getting a black eye?

Never mind the answer.....

We took you to arbitration, although that wasn't much of a fight.

 

[Superpilot92]

He essentially did. It's not a no furlough clause subject to force majeure, it's a powerful economic penalty if any DAL pilot is furloughed. Some say it's chocked full of wholes, yet no one can point to the wholes.

I absolutely understand the DALPA "third rail" which is scope relief, but it is not spin to point out that there was no change in our scope language and that there can be legitimate disagreements over contractual language. That's the nature of all grievances.

You're still avoiding the question that multiple people have asked you so i will ask again,

At what point will the MEC stand up and tell mgmt enough is enough with outsourcing our careers? Do we have a MEC that believes in stopping it? Does Moak really believe, "rjs are good for our careers"? Has he said that? If they wont stand up for the group as a whole and IF he has said or believes that, then he needs to be removed from his position. This career choice has been degraded by scope relief and has done nothing good for our industry. Scope relief has reduced our jobs, reduced our pay, eliminated upgrades and career earnings. Also most people who commute are now subject to commuting on rjs that are restricted or they dont have priority on because the domestic feed has essentially been GIVEN up by "leaders" in ALPA. Moak and Co included. The NWA side is to blame too i admit but we all can see that scope relief is a HUGE problem and we need people who will literally fight to stop it IF mgmt pushes the issue.

I welcome your response. Thanks

 

[Fly4hire]

We took you to arbitration, although that wasn't much of a fight.

Spare me the DMC - at least we stood our ground and didn't just role over and play dead. We still did way better than what you had intended for us in the opener. So what are you telling me - our MEC only fights for your rights when you are sure you can beat the other guy up?