DAL & NWA JPWA Vote

[KCPilot]

SLI before JPWA!

 

[NuGuy]

SLI before JPWA!

Ummm, I think these guys tried it that way:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=115406

Sounds like a good plan for success to me!

Nu

 

[NuGuy]

The fractionals bump paying pax from their own aircraft to accommodate commuting pilots?

Heyas Occam,

I think ACL is just talking about something similar to our own Call In Honest.

Have 2 flights. If you aren't going to make the 2nd, call, and you get a positive space to work (if they need you).

Nu

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Heyas Occam,

I think ACL is just talking about something similar to our own Call In Honest.

Have 2 flights. If you aren't going to make the 2nd, call, and you get a positive space to work (if they need you).

Nu

DL's CIH is exactly that.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Heyas Occam,

I think ACL is just talking about something similar to our own Call In Honest.

Have 2 flights. If you aren't going to make the 2nd, call, and you get a positive space to work (if they need you).

Nu

He was replying to JonJuan who was trying to equate fracs tickets on airlines to airline guys bumping pax on their own airline (read: argument did not follow)

As far as the positive space thing....it is so convoluted from one airline to the next (at some it means the employee on company business is MUST RIDE (bumps pax), on others positive space on means you positively get a seat ONLY if one is available (after all paying pax), and if so, you'd go ahead of non revs. This is especially screwed up when the flight cancels, and then there are NO seats avail for say 3 days. These deviations from airline to airline are also applied at the whim of gate agents who don't even understand their own airline's policy, so will tell people the least desirable definition du jour of "positive space."

As far as the voting thing...Is there some reason I can't see that would prevent both groups from voting yes to immediately get the ball rolling and make some improvements, then go after a side letter or something for other issues? Seems like it makes sense in this environment to grab what you can, and you whatever leverages come from the success of the "new deal" to negotiate more. Why all or nothing if you can make what seems like good improvements now? Not getting it....

 

[filejw]

Yeah...that'll solve any revenue problems!

Bump paying pax so you can live in East MommyTown.

*chortle*

Most DAL type don't commute so its not a priority for them. I've commuted for 29 yrs and i still remember some place on the employment application it said are you willing to relocate ? I never wanted somebody else to pay for my decision not to live in a base. It was/is our choice to commute.

 

[cessnapilot]

Most DAL type don't commute so its not a priority for them. I've commuted for 29 yrs and i still remember some place on the employment application it said are you willing to relocate ? I never wanted somebody else to pay for my decision not to live in a base. It was/is our choice to commute.

that might have worked 30 years ago, but now people come from their 5th airline and somewhere along the way they put in roots. Once kids are in school and roots are in, its harder to move... not to mention the fact that airlines open and close bases with little financial impact (on the pilot side) since pilots can commute to the new base. Nobody is paying for your decision not to live in base... give me a break... this is the industry today.

 

[ugasucks]

Vote No!

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I would like to see commuting folks get the ability to talk open seats a few days out for their commute to work. IE it aint sold so the commuters can turn them in to positive space seats for their trip TO work. (We are going to have a lot of people moving around in the next few years). Not bumping revenue. Just putting you a head of my family trying to go on vacation. Personally I buy tickets with our 20% discount. It is a lot easier on the Mrs. to know that she is getting a seat on a flight next to the kiddo anyway.
We do have a call in honest program, just like yours. We also have had a few base closures that have been very difficult for people. DFW left a lot of people out there with families that could not move. One of the gate agents told me that there will still 4K commuters out of there. When the stuff hits the fan many people do not make it to work. Not so good.

 

[rtmcfi]

Most DAL type don't commute so its not a priority for them. I've commuted for 29 yrs and i still remember some place on the employment application it said are you willing to relocate ? I never wanted somebody else to pay for my decision not to live in a base. It was/is our choice to commute.

All commuters stop going to work tomorrow. See what happens to the airline. Make living in domecile a requirement with todays wages/qol. See what happens. Here is a clue..... chaos. Airlines depend on commuters to exist. As such, a positive space ticket to work is not an unreasonable request.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

that might have worked 30 years ago, but now people come from their 5th airline and somewhere along the way they put in roots. Once kids are in school and roots are in, its harder to move... not to mention the fact that airlines open and close bases with little financial impact (on the pilot side) since pilots can commute to the new base. Nobody is paying for your decision not to live in base... give me a break... this is the industry today.

I completely agree...it would be a small price to pay for the airlines to have added flexibility to not only retain people, but to be able to randomly move what planes operate out of where (based on need at the time). The big picture is that it would save WAY more in training costs for people who follow the aircraft bases based on commutability.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Thank you to everyone for your replies. Jetsetter, ACL65, Peanuckle, Superpilot, Nu, Jonjuan and all.

I voted yes because the pro does outweigh the con. However, I hope Occam will favor us with a little debate on his quote. I think he’s smart, but wrong. I am to fix the “wrong” part.

… the predictable "pressure points" in the future will give us another bite at this apple. I think we were unwilling to spend negotiating capital on items that the future DAL management will engage us about later.

We KNOW there will be "DC-9" replacement aircraft selected soon. We also know it will be flown by mainline pilots.
Compass can still be easily stapled. (In a manner of speaking...they already are!) Maybe it'd be a good idea to take another chomp at that apple after we've digested the chunk we're chewing right now?

O.R.
Yes Voter.

Occam,

This is basic threat assessment. A threat to the job itself is more important than a threat to the paycheck. Alter ego is the most significant threat to our collective bargaining efforts and seniority list.

You equate a flow through to a staple when there is a clear difference. The difference is the distinction whether the airplane is being flown by a Delta pilot.

According to NWA’s management the successors for most of the DC9's flying are the CRJ900 and ERJ170.

There is no better time to staple Compass:
1. The pilots at Compass have no longevity. As time passes, those who bypass will not want to be stapled below their former first officers. Seniority integration will never be as clean as it is now. Delta’s outsourcing debacle started as a result of fear over Comair and ASA’s potential seniority demands. Why not avoid that mess?
2. If you are correct and the E170/E190 is a good choice, it would clearly benefit us to get the type on the property now. In the past, predictable pressure points have resulted in relaxing scope, in part on the basis that the type is already in operation. The justification for the CRJ700, 900 and coming CRJ1000 are that the type is a minimal change from status quo.
3. It isn’t right that pilots in Company service lose longevity as they step across an imaginary and arbitrary line between alter ego divisions of the same employer.
4. There is no need to spend one iota of negotiating capital. We could operate these carriers under one list, with separate contracts. It has been done before. I’d rather fix the most serious threat now and fix the Compass pilots pay (not that there is a significant difference) later.

Alter ego threats should not be seen as a “negotiating capital” concern. Following that logic, the senior pilots outsource more and more until there are no senior pilots. No, alter ego should be interpreted as windshear, a GPWS warning, engine fire and report of flames in the cabin… everything should be done to save the airplane and the job.

You think we will get a bite at a good apple and I sure hope you are right. But you know the history of “pressure points” and we have been pressured into giving up flying. In your version it could cut either way. In my version, we know that this DC9 flying would remain on our seniority list and it need not cost us anything.

Thanks for indulging me. Hope you (and our union) consider a change regarding scope policy in general.

~~~^~~~

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas Fins,

If oil contines it's retrentchment, the DC-9s become VERY cost effective. As Occam has ALWAYS said, they are an accumulator of sorts, and are able to be rapidly deployed and re-deployed (from the desert) at almost a moments notice.

While I agree that they'll be replaced at some point, this permits some maneuvering room on our part.

The NWA guys have always been able to use the company's sore spots effectively to obtain mid-contract gains. It is VERY doable.

Nu

 

[FDJ2]

In order to achieve large contractual gains we need two things, a strong and profitable company and a unified pilot group. Neither the Delta pilots or NWA pilots have that today. We need to get there.

This JCBA gives us all the best chance to get there in the shortest time.

This isn't about kumbaya and playing nice with each other, not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a business decision which happens to be a win-win-win for all of us.

The best furlough protection you can have is a profitable and growing airline, by capturing the value of this merger sooner, rather than later, it gives us all the best opportunity to work for a growing and profitable airline.

I don't see any cons to this JCBA, it provides equity for all of us, contract improvements and parity for all, and a superior SLI process agreement that gives us all the best chance to achieve a fair and equitable seniority list.

No other pilot group has ever accomplished what the DAL/NWA pilots have on the front end of a merger. Just my 2 cents.

 

[767/757]

In order to achieve large contractual gains we need two things, a strong and profitable company and a unified pilot group. Neither the Delta pilots or NWA pilots have that today. We need to get there.

This JCBA gives us all the best chance to get there in the shortest time.

This isn't about kumbaya and playing nice with each other, not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a business decision which happens to be a win-win-win for all of us.

The best furlough protection you can have is a profitable and growing airline, by capturing the value of this merger sooner, rather than later, it gives us all the best opportunity to work for a growing and profitable airline.

I don't see any cons to this JCBA, it provides equity for all of us, contract improvements and parity for all, and a superior SLI process agreement that gives us all the best chance to achieve a fair and equitable seniority list.

No other pilot group has ever accomplished what the DAL/NWA pilots have on the front end of a merger. Just my 2 cents.

Well said and I fully agree!

 

[Occam's Razor]

I hope Occam will favor us with a little debate on his quote. I think he’s smart, but wrong.

You sound like my wife. Now shout, "OW! You're on my hair!" and we'll see if you have the impression down pat.

This is basic threat assessment.

Disagree. I think it's more "Issue Prioritization". We know the threats. I'd be nice if we could neutralize all of them at once...but it appears we can't. So we prioritize them.

A threat to the job itself is more important than a threat to the paycheck.

Are you talking to me...or a DAL B777 captain? I can show you how immediately placing all CPZ pilots on the new list would be a threat to his job...or at least the value of his job.

Alter ego is the most significant threat to our collective bargaining efforts and seniority list.

Agree. CPZ isn't an "alter ego" issue. It's an RJ Scope issue. Alter Ego refers to something else (think "equivalent size and operation"). With a line drawn based on aircraft size, it's been partitioned separately in our contract(s).

You equate a flow through to a staple when there is a clear difference.

Actually, I wrote "In a manner of speaking". That means I acknowledge there are differences.

The difference is the distinction whether the airplane is being flown by a Delta pilot.

...or future DAL pilot.

What sort of language does your CURRENT contract contain that addresses that? LOA 19?

They don't. Our's does. We incorporated it into the JCBA for a reason. It s a clear enhancement to the current DAL contract, and LOA 19.

According to NWA’s management the successors for most of the DC9's flying are the CRJ900 and ERJ170.

Change "most" to "some" and we'll agree.

There is no better time to staple Compass

If we have to pay a lot for it, there is! If/when it becomes management's issue, we'll pay less for it. At this point we've prioritized the issue as a "want" rather than a "need". It's relative importance varies based on where you sit.

The pilots at Compass have no longevity. As time passes, those who bypass will not want to be stapled below their former first officers.

Are you saying Date Of Hire is the only way to merge a list?

I'll concede it might be easier to do now, but you'll have to concede it has a price.

If you are correct and the E170/E190 is a good choice, it would clearly benefit us to get the type on the property now.

I'd prefer to let management buy the larger variant, then come to us for help integrating it. That represents opportunity for us. If an aircraft they buy to fly at the mainline (MUST fly at the mainline!) is the same type as one being flown at CPZ (or MSA), the cost to us decreases. We'd be solving their "problem" and getting something we want. The biggest issue for us would be how to set composite pay rates. That could be a food fight.

In the past, predictable pressure points have resulted in relaxing scope,

Or gaining Scope. We did it here in '98 when NWA purchased control of CAL. We got 4 Scope letters and other enhancements to our Scope because we knew what they needed to close the deal.

The justification for the CRJ700, 900 and coming CRJ1000 are that the type is a minimal change from status quo.

That's management's issue...not ours. It's significance to us is it's a cost item for them to operate the same fleet at two separate airlines.

It isn’t right that pilots in Company service lose longevity as they step across an imaginary and arbitrary line between alter ego divisions of the same employer.

Oversimplification.

Nobody loses longevity unless you assume a pilot with 500 hours that goes to work somewhere to build time and experience is "losing longevity" in that process.

There is no need to spend one iota of negotiating capital. We could operate these carriers under one list, with separate contracts. It has been done before.

I'm drawing a blank here. Can you give me the specifics of where/how it's working elsewhere right now?

I’d rather fix the most serious threat now and fix the Compass pilots pay (not that there is a significant difference) later.

Disagree. I don't believe CPZ pilot's pay is our "most serious threat".

Alter ego threats should not be seen as a “negotiating capital” concern.

Please copy your MEC and Negotiating Committee in on your concerns. They don't agree with you.

Following that logic, the senior pilots outsource more and more until there are no senior pilots. No, alter ego should be interpreted as windshear, a GPWS warning, engine fire and report of flames in the cabin… everything should be done to save the airplane and the job.

Definition issue. "Alter ego" is not what we're discussing. But I submit that if you were faced with all of those airborne emergencies simultaneously, you'd prioritize them.

We have. ("We" being both MEC's)

You think we will get a bite at a good apple and I sure hope you are right.

Except when I'm wrong...I'm always right!

 

[FBN0223]

Voted Yes

 

[JohnDoe]

I think the elements that were retained form the core of the Scope that both ALPA teams felt were essential. I won't go into details, but the predictable "pressure points" in the future will give us another bite at this apple. I think we were unwilling to spend negotiating capital on items that the future DAL management will engage us about later.

Wow. That sounds alot like the bankruptcy TA "sales-job."

"We don't believe........," "line in the sand........," "they need the lift.........."

Now add: "We'll negotiate better scope later."

Riiiiight.

 

[~~~^~~~]

John,

You are exactly right. Occam writes:

Are you talking to me...or a DAL B777 captain? I can show you how immediately placing all CPZ pilots on the new list would be a threat to his job...or at least the value of his job.

He thinks that selling Superpilot92's job to subsidize higher pay at the top end is a good thing. It is the same old "bargaining credit" logic that was used to justify the previous scope sales. Occam does not recognize the flying as "alter ego" but read what Delta's managers have to say on page 8 of this month's SKY Magazine and form your own opinion:

"Chances are...you are reading this on one of Delta's... regional jets. That's more than two-thirds Delta's daily schedule, more than 2,700 flights daily to 233 destinations...

Our goal is to mirror the experience so that you do not know if you are on a Delta Connection, or a Delta airplane."
http://www.delta-sky.com/2008_08/fullmagazine/

That is alter ego. Occam's logic fails when he writes:

Alter Ego refers to something else (think "equivalent size and operation"). With a line drawn based on aircraft size, it's been partitioned separately in our contract(s).

If Compass replaces DC9 flying and the customer can't tell the difference, it is alter ego by the established latin phrase "a second self" and in labor law as a Company under the same control, serving the same purpose, to the same customers and in the case of Compass, same ownership.

Compass is a ALPA sanctioned, alter ego. In my opinion it is the union's duty to bring pilots together to bargain collectively NOT to outsource and sell jobs.

The old timers who formed our union knew alter ego was the #1 threat to our union and when Pan Am acquired their feeder, Ransome Airways, they extended the seniority list down placing Ransome on the list. Ransome pilots worked under their Ransome agreement but had Pan Am numbers & Pan Am longevity. Some of those pilots retired from Delta. US Air sort of did the same thing with MidAtlantic/Republic.

There are ways to keep this flying on Delta's list, but Occam does not want to see them. Occam does not want to recognize that outsourcing two thirds of your flying is a problem.

Obviously I'm picking on Occam simply because he represents the way our union currently thinks about alter ego replacement of our jobs. He is correct when he writes:

Please copy your MEC and Negotiating Committee in on your concerns. They don't agree with you.

and that is why I'm having a very hard time rationally voting "yes." They have done some terrific and truly impressive work, but I just can't vote to enable more outsourcing of Delta flying. This issue is that important.

 

[~~~^~~~]

In order to achieve large contractual gains we need two things, a strong and profitable company and a unified pilot group. Neither the Delta pilots or NWA pilots have that today. We need to get there.

This JCBA gives us all the best chance to get there in the shortest time.

The best furlough protection you can have is a profitable and growing airline, by capturing the value of this merger sooner, rather than later, it gives us all the best opportunity to work for a growing and profitable airline.

I don't see any cons to this JCBA, it provides equity for all of us, contract improvements and parity for all, and a superior SLI process agreement that gives us all the best chance to achieve a fair and equitable seniority list.

No other pilot group has ever accomplished what the DAL/NWA pilots have on the front end of a merger. Just my 2 cents.

FDJ2:

Excellent, excellent, points.

I've been very conflicted about this important vote. It was my hope that the opportunity presented by the JPWA would be the time to fix bankruptcy scope agreements at no cost.

The JPWA brings with it NWA's outsourcing scheme. There is still time to fix it.