ACL65PILOT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Posts
- 4,621
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does it specifiy which 6 seats are removed? Do they have to come from first class (the ones that hurt?)
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.
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.
Then why not take it to arbitration and let the judge decide?While the Association feels confident that our interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e. is correct,
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.....there always remain several elements of risk whenever an issue is decided through arbitration.
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?"
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.
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.
Ask the AAA pilots. I'm sure many fNWA pilots were confident in DOH.
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.....
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.
We took you to arbitration, although that wasn't much of a fight.
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.
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?
Oh yeah, fNWA... sorry dude, unless you have proof that this was a solo deal your boys signed off on this too.
Reps were informed, not consulted - fDAL included. Maybe a few knew - I don't know. I was under the distinct impression that C44 among other were completely unaware of this settlement until briefed at the Sp MEC Mtg......while covered under the greivance process, it appears most Reps, fNWA and fDAL are unhappy with the settlement.
Spare me the DMC - at least we stood our ground and didn't just roll 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?
We took you to arbitration, although that wasn't much of a fight.
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.
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).