DAL junior Pilots sold down the river by NEW MEC

[ACL65PILOT]

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?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Does it specifiy which 6 seats are removed? Do they have to come from first class (the ones that hurt?)

I do not think so. As I read it they can take any six seats out of these 71-76 seat airframes.
Fact is that they are initially blocked off. They have time to take them out. I would guess that they will not be sold. but the gate agents would use them in an oversold situation. (gives DAL time to work a work around with DALPA, IMHO)

 

[Whine Lover]

" synergies."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Stop it General you're killing me here...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Certainly you know that "synergies" is a Management term meaning: " We are planning to f-ck you hard in the long run, but we'll make it seem like a good idea at the time."

Right?

 

[mfliin]

OK for my first post ever. It's time to get off the sidelines....I'm ready to recall my union reps.
I have been watching my quality of life slip away for the past 2 years. Where's the DFR here? AND I have to pay my union(dues assessment) so that I can sue them over the JPWA???? WTF over. The best thing to come out of this merger will (one day) be the back-bone of the NWA group. Sorry for the rant...

 

[FDJ2]

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.

 

[SFR]

sold down the river? is that the chatahoochie?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

FDJ2,

The fact is that the union apparently doesn't understand that the sentiment and desire of the pilot group is no further scope relief is wanted (this is scope relief, no matter how you spin it) and must be fought tooth and nail!

These big RJs are our replacements...they have a first class, they have long range, and they aren't a sardine can like a CRJ-200.

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."

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

Even after all this further explaination and clarification from the union... I'm even more ticked off at them than I was initially. Even the CA I'm flying with on this trip spent around half of the 4 hour leg yesterday ranting about this latest move of idiocy. ...and we all know when it ticks off even the senior widebody guys, they've really screwed up.



As I wrote to my rep....maybe one day when we are all out of a job and every Delta airplane has an "Operated by ____ Airlines" on the side of it, the union will finally understand that things have long since been allowed to slide too far.


Scope is by far the most important issue with airline labor today...

 

[ACL65PILOT]

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.

I am quite glad that you admit that this could have been handled differently. That message needs to be told to OUR MEC and told quite loudly. Scope is no longer for sale. I do not care what we have to do to make it so, we are not willing to give up anymore than we already have. I thought that was clear, that is why this is so insulting to so many of us.
Does our MEC now understand that???!!

All I will say is that we better not see that 154th 76 seat jet on property before we see the 767th mainline jet. That is another direct violation of scope and this settlement. If that happens all of our fears will be validated.
I know what we are doing with the 50 seat DCI a/c. I also know that the pull down has been slowed down for the time being. I am glad to see that our guys in route management realize that these jets are not money makers. Yes, brand loyalty is dead, but people will not forgive you for bad service even if they pay 99 bucks round trip. It is the Quality that these jets bring. Problem, with the 76 seaters is that they are a good quality. In effect it is good that DAL has the possibility of making back some of its losses on DCI, but they sould be making it back on the mainline list. Not as some B or C scale.
Why do we see DCI as a good thing again??

I have watched over the last 15 years as DCI has grown. After 9-11 DCI grew to a huge operator of DAL branded flights. There are 7500 DCI pilots. We in effect shrunk mainline (pre merger) from 10500 to 6600 pilots. Parking the L15, MD-11, 732, and 727's. That right there is why DCI grew. In effect we had 4000 mainline jobs go do DCI in the last six years. Enough is enough.

 

[FBN0223]

deleted

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2: Thank you for your logical posts. You put up some very good information.

ACL65: Thank you for pushing for that information.

FDJ2 - is there any chance ALPA has got the economics wrong? Your use of the word RJ interchangeably for both a CRJ100, an E135 and a CRJ 900 or E175...it is a gross oversimplification and fails to recognize that the newest generation of these jets have better numbers on mainline routes than our equipment being replaced.

This outsourcing leaves our union fundamentally weaker than before, establishing a long term downward trend with lower highs and lower lows.

Can you address this concern? Thanks.

 

[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.