DAL junior Pilots sold down the river by NEW MEC

[ACL65PILOT]

For now it looks like 255 76 seat jets for some lame no furlough protection. What I mean is if they break this again, what are we going to do. Wet ourselves and move on?

 

[General Lee]

I think he's toast anyway. How many more Delta jets are we going to let non-Delta pilots fly?

I agree, and I wanted the Compass pilots and planes on our list. I didn't get to vote, though. I think we need to remind our MEC members that they represent US. Any future agreements can't be made in the dark.

As far as this furlough protection, it probably isn't full proof, but it is a lot better than what we had pre 9-11. We never had anything stating there could be economical consequences to DL with people getting furloughed (taking seats out of 76 seaters), and we never had a flow down to Compass, which would also cost them money. We didn't have those things before, and if we do have to furlough hopefully they will be enforced. Again, I would have voted a big NO on this, and Moak will likely hear this from a lot of people.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Whine Lover]

" As far as this furlough protection, it probably isn't full proof..."

I Generally ( pun intended ), prefer either " Full Proof " such as an Everclear, or at the very least a good 80 Proof.

But, that's just me.

To each his own.

YKMKR

 

[FDJ2]

From what I hear the ALPA guys are in France. I cannot tell you why though.

They're in Atlanta.

 

[ThisistheDream]

So if the company wanted to envoke a force majuer policy to allow them to furlough, when we have a NO furlough policy, what exactly has to happen for force majuer to legally allow them to furlough against the contract? Would a 1st quarter posted loss of
2 billion do the trick? Or would they have to be going into bankrupt area again to envoke the foce majuer?

 

[~~~^~~~]

They're in Atlanta.

Anyone know if there is a meeting on Friday?

 

[FDJ2]

So if the company wanted to envoke a force majuer policy to allow them to furlough, when we have a NO furlough policy, what exactly has to happen for force majuer to legally allow them to furlough against the contract? Would a 1st quarter posted loss of
2 billion do the trick? Or would they have to be going into bankrupt area again to envoke the foce majuer?

The furlough protection just negotiated, the removal of 6 seats from the 76 seaters, is not subject to force majeure, however general furlough protection is.

General Furlough Protection
1. No pilot on the seniority list as of the DCC will be placed on furlough on less than 90 days advance written notice.
2. No pilot on the seniority list as of the DCC will be placed on furlough if the staffing at the time of notice or at time of furlough is less than the PBS Staffing Formula (​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Section 22 C.[/FONT]) for any position.
3. For a period of 24 months following DCC, no pilot on the seniority list will be placed on furlough as a result of the merger between the Company and Northwest.
4. The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of ​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Section 1 I. 1.[/FONT], [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2. [/FONT]and [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3. [/FONT]in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such noncompliance.


For areas of the contract that are subject to FM, here is the applicable language.

"Circumstance over which the Company does not have control," for the purposes of [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Section 1[/FONT], means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster; labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term "circumstance over which the Company does not have control" will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current operations.

 

[FDJ2]

Anyone know if there is a meeting on Friday?

The MEC meeting is scheduled to last through this Thursday. The next LEC 44 meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 13th.

 

[d.fitz]

That's what you get for merging with the crappiest major in existence.... Not a good break, champ!

Continental wasn't a part of this.... uke:

 

[ACL65PILOT]

They're in Atlanta.

I know that. But there are ALPA members in France and you know that.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

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

Anyone with me?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Yes, I think a lot of people are with you.

One of the LEC's needs a resolution passed to start the ball rolling.

 

[FDJ2]

I know that. But there are ALPA members in France and you know that.

You said "the" ALPA guys, I understood that to mean the MEC and Administration, most of whom are in Atlanta attending an MEC meeting.

 

[Fly4hire]

I know that. But there are ALPA members in France and you know that.

Doing what?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

A decertification effort would only weaken our representative structure. A recall effort is only as good as the new people who would rise to leadership.

excellent points.

Participatory democracy is key. I am willing to bet that most junior pilots at DAL will spend more time complaining on FI and in crewrooms than actually creating a political force....

Fundamentally the people in charge must understand & believe:

1. The power of any union is its ability to bring the maximum number of pilots together to bargain collectively with one voice

How do we do that? It is all about economics.

1. Policies that exclude pilots - undermine your power and the effectiveness of your contract

That is correct. While pilots should be paid accordingly, the huge dispairity between pilots creates divisions.

In this thread, the inclusive enemy is wide body CA's. The goal.... how do we make a WB CA as similiar to a NB FO?

1. Pilots do not buy airplanes... companies succeed when they deploy the most effective resources and services against their competition

Correct: Air Line Pilots do not run airlines. They unify.

Inclusive scope language is stronger than exclusive language

1. The goal must be “all Delta flying will be performed by Delta pilots.” Everything should be measured against this core tenet.

If we don't help those up they will surely drag us down....

 

[grinder]

"With some overlapping routes? You mean between our hubs? And giving up gates that aren't used all of the time? Sounds like that would save money. The economy is in a free fall, just like fuel prices, which means a lot. With lower fuel we can have 1/2 the loads we had after 9-11 and still be profitable. And, 50 seat RJs are the real losers here, and they will be parked in mass. The DC9s are actually getting a raise in block hours per day, and will fly almost all the routes from ATL that RJs used to fly against Airtran 717s. I think your world and your reality is a bit cloudy."

Just after 9-11 fuel was around $27 a barrel Jet Fuel is higher now than it was then, and the long term decrease in flying pax is going to be worse due to unemployment, etc. People were only scared for a little while. Now they have no $$. The overlap is in servicing the destinations, not so much the hub stuff as that is still required using large gauge a/c. If x city got 3 hits a day for each carrier, now you can do with 1 NB and 3 ERJs and even increase the frequency of "Delta" service. Unfortunately furoughs will happen and lots of the fellas will be there to carry the load. Just like last time. Glad I'm outside looking in now.

Grinder.

 

[General Lee]

"With some overlapping routes? You mean between our hubs? And giving up gates that aren't used all of the time? Sounds like that would save money. The economy is in a free fall, just like fuel prices, which means a lot. With lower fuel we can have 1/2 the loads we had after 9-11 and still be profitable. And, 50 seat RJs are the real losers here, and they will be parked in mass. The DC9s are actually getting a raise in block hours per day, and will fly almost all the routes from ATL that RJs used to fly against Airtran 717s. I think your world and your reality is a bit cloudy."

Just after 9-11 fuel was around $27 a barrel Jet Fuel is higher now than it was then, and the long term decrease in flying pax is going to be worse due to unemployment, etc. People were only scared for a little while. Now they have no $$. The overlap is in servicing the destinations, not so much the hub stuff as that is still required using large gauge a/c. If x city got 3 hits a day for each carrier, now you can do with 1 NB and 3 ERJs and even increase the frequency of "Delta" service. Unfortunately furoughs will happen and lots of the fellas will be there to carry the load. Just like last time. Glad I'm outside looking in now.

Grinder.

How many RJs did we have back then too? We parked all of our 727s, L1011s, and our MD11s right after 9-11. The economy also took a dump back then too. Since then we have dumped our pensions on the DL side, took pay cuts, and have gotten leaner. We were READY to pay fuel in the price range of $140 a barrel this year, and instead we will pay a portion of our bill at $110 a barrel during Q1, with a decreasing amount at that price throughout the year, and are looking at a profit for the year. We started the pull down of flying---mainly RJs. We are saving money on gates and other synergies that are not pilot related. (we have very little overlap) The sky isn't falling just yet, and it is too bad you are looking in from the outside.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[ThisistheDream]

So if I read this right if DAL wants to enfocre force majuer, thay can NOT for the reasons of high fuel prices, bad economy or the finaces good or bad at DAL. They can only enforce the majuer if other items on the List happen? It said they could enforce it if a plane orders scheduled for delivery are postponed and out of there control. The 787 is postponed and might be for awhile????NWA now DAL has 18 up to 50 on order? isthis a loop hole open?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

But those aircraft are replacements, so there is a twist to that. They have not hired for them and not gotten them.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Doing what?

Drinking french wine and eating cheese, what else did you expect?

 

[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?)