DAL junior Pilots sold down the river by NEW MEC

[Scope out RJ's]

Is it any WONDER this profession is in a downward spiral with these illiterates that obsess over the wrong things????:angryfire
SO f-ing stupid!

Speaking of stupid, voice of whining, shouldn't you be over at the frac boards where you belong trying to piss off the net jets guys and worrying about your own house at flops?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Here is one for ya.

I have been getting a few indications that RJDC is seeing LOA 2006-10 as an infraction on its agreement with ALPA. RJDC's beef is that this LOA pertained to only its original signatory's. (NWA-DAL-CPA and Mesaba) Fact is that due to the fact that this LOA now applies to all DCI carrier is very important to all Delta pilots. As we are shrinking we need to realize that this now affords our pilots the ability through our CBA to have rights at other carriers. It was not unintentional.
What we need to do is make sure that our MEC and CNC do not sign a MOA with the RJDC and company that it only includes these carriers. If they do that it is only a further erosion of our CBA rites. I urge all of you to contract our representation and tell them what the importance of this NWA LOA 2006-10 is to all of us.

 

[Monster Buck]

I have read the company's position many times now to figure out why our union felt that we couldn't have done better by pressing the point. I see how the company is spinning this and why the union thought the way they did. BUT IT IS A SCOPE RELIEF plain and simple. I talked with my rep and he was very adamant about me not using the words scope relief. Someone on here said we should be writing into our contract what IS ours and not what isn't. IE all ac above 76 seats is ours period. I wonder if it is not like that on purpose. Known by both Lee and the company. Reading over the scope in our contract I can see many of these arguments are going to rise up again in the future. We need some better lawyers to right this up than the ones that have aided in the past. Our scope is so full of arguable wording that I wonder if a slick management lawyer is writing it or someone with our best interest in mind.

We better lock down 77 seats and above right now or we are going to be in this mess arguing over the gap between the dc-9-30 and the emb175 for the next twenty years.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Part of what RJDC is looking at is scoping type of AC. That means that the CL-65 series will have the CRJ 1000. Make sure that our union folks do not sell this as better for us.
The same would hold true with the E-series.

 

[Fly4hire]

Here is one for ya.

I have been getting a few indications that RJDC is seeing LOA 2006-10 as an infraction on its agreement with ALPA. RJDC's beef is that this LOA pertained to only its original signatory's. (NWA-DAL-CPA and Mesaba) Fact is that due to the fact that this LOA now applies to all DCI carrier is very important to all Delta pilots.

Does it? I thought the LOA was still NWA/DAL/CPZ/XJ only and that we had no flow up/down with anyone else. Please refer me to any LOA or MOU that changes the scope (no pun intended) of LOA 2006-10.

I thought the beef was that RJDC wanted a flow for all DCI's? Additionally I don't think they'd have much luck Scoping all series of a type into their operations in contradiction of the mainlines 76 seat limit.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

It is also in Section 1

 

[~~~^~~~]

FIN, of your current elected Reps, which ones were elected because their goal was to keep the status quo?

You are kind of twisting my post a little.

I responded to a decertification drive suggestion. I don't think a decertification drive benefits our membership. I just pointed out some of the alternatives to carpet bombing ALPA because our frustration over scope language.

Since you asked, I will say plainly that our Reps and our Contract Negotiating Committee fail to fully appreciate the perilous position our current contract language places us in and the light will come on as this language is tested.

Fundamentally, we are flawed when we start using scope as bargaining leverage. As we erode our flying our bargaining power is reduced. Most fail to see the negative trend line that is the direct result of this policy.

Secondly, our control mechanisms are weak and fail when put under stress. Examples include our recent settlement over 76 seat jet flying where a difference in opinions on what the definition of "is" is resulted in 29 additional large RJ's while our mainline fleet is shrinking. Mark my words, we will next be tested on NWA LOA's 2006-10 and 2006-14.

I expect we will fail to protect these contract provisions since there is a pervasive thought that using scope as bargaining capital increases pay. Rather than seeing outsourcing as a threat, some see it as an opportunity.

I like my Reps and hope they will listen to my concerns. I don't think replacing the status quo with a more radical version of the status quo will help us. Instead we need to approach these scope issues smarter and more objectively.

 

[Fly4hire]

It is also in Section 1

Just read the section - the LOA's do not include flow other than CPZ/XJ, but leave the framework open for reciprocal preferential hiring if other DCI carriers want to engage.

I'm guessing the RJDC scum want to sue for a seat at DAL - again. Wanna bet they don't want it to flow down hill either?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

The worry amongst some if that the MEC will negotiate it away. There is the potential for that. It is not something that needs to be done ever. Especially during this time of economic meltdown.
Make sure that our MEC and CNC realize with out an iota of a doubt that These LOA's and Sction one are not for sale or to be used as negioation captial.
I firmily believe that with these preferential flows and hiring agreeemtns we could avoid a furlough. DAL will pay for you going out, at the new carrier and coming back. It is a lot of money for them to spend. Spending that money is a real deternet to a off the cuff furlough.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Speaking of stupid, voice of whining, shouldn't you be over at the frac boards where you belong trying to piss off the net jets guys and worrying about your own house at flops?

http://forums.flightinfo.com/search.php?searchid=2057268

Not one single post from this guy has been anything other than troll...How is he not banned???
Not ONE post.