Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-13-2009, 05:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Does it represent an opportunity for the Scope Chickens to
1. Yell the sky is falling with no evidence?
2. Tilt at another windmill where there is no proof that a windmill stands?
3. Insert your favorite metaphor here...
Yup, DALPA isn't as shrewd as the average airlinepilotcentral.com forum poster...they were bamboozled by something that the books say didn't happen and that those that yell the loudest can't prove.
Give me some proof and I'll act on it. The airplanes are flying at less than 86,000 lbs. That's fact. RAH opspecs call for 86,000 lbs. Management says the aircraft are compliant.
Do you really believe what you write?
Name one CP or executive manager that has stated what you state...
I'm sure I'll hear crickets.
1. Yell the sky is falling with no evidence?
2. Tilt at another windmill where there is no proof that a windmill stands?
3. Insert your favorite metaphor here...
Yup, DALPA isn't as shrewd as the average airlinepilotcentral.com forum poster...they were bamboozled by something that the books say didn't happen and that those that yell the loudest can't prove.
Give me some proof and I'll act on it. The airplanes are flying at less than 86,000 lbs. That's fact. RAH opspecs call for 86,000 lbs. Management says the aircraft are compliant.
Do you really believe what you write?
Name one CP or executive manager that has stated what you state...
I'm sure I'll hear crickets.
FWIW Reps have been passed names as was the orginal violation info.
Us APC Scope Chickens with those pesky internet rumors uncovered the violation to begin with despite being initially dismissed with the same "man behind the curtain" hubris you use now.
BTW you have still never addressed who paid for the mod (unfinished or not) beyond taking the CEO's word for it.
Last edited by Fly4hire; 07-13-2009 at 07:00 AM.
07-13-2009, 05:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: 88B - Loud Pipes Save Lives
Posts: 1,597
All of this talk of 76 seat jet's had me feeling that we had missed something special. I found it this morning. And feel like I just had three minutes of my life taken that I will never get back. At the 2:10 point, I thought we were going to see how one runs out of energy at altitude in of those pesky flight maneuvers.
YouTube - Mesa Air
This is our future unless we defend it!
YouTube - Mesa Air
This is our future unless we defend it!
07-13-2009, 06:05 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Does it represent an opportunity for the Scope Chickens to
1. Yell the sky is falling with no evidence?
2. Tilt at another windmill where there is no proof that a windmill stands?
3. Insert your favorite metaphor here...
Yup, DALPA isn't as shrewd as the average airlinepilotcentral.com forum poster...they were bamboozled by something that the books say didn't happen and that those that yell the loudest can't prove.
Give me some proof and I'll act on it.
1. Yell the sky is falling with no evidence?
2. Tilt at another windmill where there is no proof that a windmill stands?
3. Insert your favorite metaphor here...
Yup, DALPA isn't as shrewd as the average airlinepilotcentral.com forum poster...they were bamboozled by something that the books say didn't happen and that those that yell the loudest can't prove.
Give me some proof and I'll act on it.
You say that YOU will act on this if brought proof. That is an interesting statement. Just WHO are YOU? Do you speak as the collective conscience of our MEC? If so, communications involves more than speaking, it involves listening. Those on this board are your best friends, they are active and they care about the good of the pilot group, just as you do. These motivated individuals can be a great asset in contract negotiations, or gadfly detractors.
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
If scope is important, why is it written in such a way that it is difficult to properly administer? ALL E-175's are Certified to weights higher than allowed by our scope, but, the operator can restrict the airplane to a more conservative limitation and Embraer will issue a Certificate per the customer's request. This is not an OBJECTIVE scope limit, it is a an easily manipulated paperwork shuffle that requires inspection of an aircraft's maintenance records to determine compliance and which can be changed with a pen in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
Delta's MEC should know this, since our own airplanes are operated at weights less than they are "Certified" for.
The fact that line pilots have to ferret out scope violations suggests that at the very least many pilots do not have confidence that the MEC is effectively doing its job in this area. Right or wrong, this perception exists. I think our history gives them legitimate reasons for concern.
Every scope renegotiation is a FAILURE. The 2001 scope did not last 90 days before massive furloughs were announced. Then we saw repeated FAILURES in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 as scope was again relaxed and more Delta jobs outsourced. To this day management can both furlough and hire from within the Delta "family" and has at least nine alter ego airlines performing domestic and international "Delta" flying. While we scope "chickens," as you call us, have sounded the alarm the flying performed by Delta pilots has decreased from 90% to around 50% of system block.
Now we are faced with a pilot surplus and the unanswered question of a DC9 replacement. If YOU speak for our MEC, PLEASE THEN LISTEN FOR OUR MEC and take them the message that your repeated failures to ensure Delta pilots are performing Delta flying has your junior pilots concerned.
Rather than throwing around third grade taunts like "Chicken," my request to you is more reasoned. We want a statement from our MEC Chairman to restore our confidence. I want to hear that they sent someone to inspect Republic's maintenance records, that they did the right thing to proactively protect the Delta pilots they serve.
When I ask about waivers sent from Captain O'Malley to the Comair and ASA pilots releasing them from our Contract's scope (specifically LOA 2006-10) we expect the truth, not a denial of any knowledge of those negotiations. It gives me no satisfaction that the "proof" is in my inbox, it just leaves me a little sick to my stomach and worried about my future here at Delta Air Lines.
Of course such a release leads me to question Exception two: "In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85." Well? We waived one of the triggers already.
Call me a "Chicken." I think we have legitimate reasons to be concerned that our scope will effectively protect jobs in the coming downturn and realignment. In fact, it appears to me someone knew what they were doing when they set many protections to expire in December of 2010.
Frankly, calling me, or anyone else a "Chicken" is the worst case scenario. We are your First Officers telling you we saw something that makes us uncomfortable. When your FO tells you he has a concern about airworthiness do you respond, "what, you a Chicken, bwak bwak?" Of course you don't. I humbly suggest the same CRM used on the line works online too.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 07-13-2009 at 09:23 AM.
07-13-2009, 06:12 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Slow,
That's offensive. You say that YOU will act on this if brought proof. That is an interesting statement. Just WHO are YOU? Do you speak as the collective conscience of our MEC? If so, let me ask, Who's job is it to monitor and ensure compliance with our contract?
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
If scope is important, why is it written in such a way that it is difficult to properly administer? ALL E-175's are Certified to weights higher than allowed by our scope, but, the operator can restrict the airplane to a more conservative limitation and Embraer will issue a Certificate per the customer's request. This is not an OBJECTIVE scope limit, it is a an easily manipulated paperwork shuffle that requires inspection of an aircraft's maintenance records to determine compliance and which can be changed with a pen in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
Delta's MEC should know this, since our own airplanes are operated at weights less than they are "Certified" for. I'll give you three guesses as to why an overweight landing is a much bigger deal on a 737 than an MD88.
The fact that line pilots have to ferret out scope violations suggests that at the very least many pilots do not have confidence that the MEC is effectively doing its job in this area.
Every scope renegotiation is a FAILURE. The 2001 scope did not last 90 days before massive furloughs were announced. Then we saw repeated FAILURES in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 as scope was again relaxed and more Delta jobs outsourced. To this day management can both furlough and hire from within the Delta "family" and has at least nine alter ego airlines performing domestic and international "Delta" flying. While we scope "chickens," as you call us, have sounded the alarm the flying performed by Delta pilots has decreased from 90% to around 50% of system block.
Now we are faced with a pilot surplus and the unanswered question of a DC9 replacement. If YOU speak for our MEC, PLEASE THEN LISTEN FOR OUR MEC and take them the message that your repeated failures to ensure Delta pilots are performing Delta flying has your junior pilots concerned.
We want a statement from our MEC Chairman to restore our confidence. I want to hear that they sent someone to inspect Republic's maintenance records, that they did the right thing to proactively protect the Delta pilots they serve.
That's offensive. You say that YOU will act on this if brought proof. That is an interesting statement. Just WHO are YOU? Do you speak as the collective conscience of our MEC? If so, let me ask, Who's job is it to monitor and ensure compliance with our contract?
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
If scope is important, why is it written in such a way that it is difficult to properly administer? ALL E-175's are Certified to weights higher than allowed by our scope, but, the operator can restrict the airplane to a more conservative limitation and Embraer will issue a Certificate per the customer's request. This is not an OBJECTIVE scope limit, it is a an easily manipulated paperwork shuffle that requires inspection of an aircraft's maintenance records to determine compliance and which can be changed with a pen in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
Delta's MEC should know this, since our own airplanes are operated at weights less than they are "Certified" for. I'll give you three guesses as to why an overweight landing is a much bigger deal on a 737 than an MD88.
The fact that line pilots have to ferret out scope violations suggests that at the very least many pilots do not have confidence that the MEC is effectively doing its job in this area.
Every scope renegotiation is a FAILURE. The 2001 scope did not last 90 days before massive furloughs were announced. Then we saw repeated FAILURES in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 as scope was again relaxed and more Delta jobs outsourced. To this day management can both furlough and hire from within the Delta "family" and has at least nine alter ego airlines performing domestic and international "Delta" flying. While we scope "chickens," as you call us, have sounded the alarm the flying performed by Delta pilots has decreased from 90% to around 50% of system block.
Now we are faced with a pilot surplus and the unanswered question of a DC9 replacement. If YOU speak for our MEC, PLEASE THEN LISTEN FOR OUR MEC and take them the message that your repeated failures to ensure Delta pilots are performing Delta flying has your junior pilots concerned.
We want a statement from our MEC Chairman to restore our confidence. I want to hear that they sent someone to inspect Republic's maintenance records, that they did the right thing to proactively protect the Delta pilots they serve.
Well said Bar
07-13-2009, 06:17 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
[quote=Bucking Bar;644055]Slow,
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
Bucking,
We may agree that Scope is the most important part of our contract but it doesn't even rise to the importance of crew meals according to the June WIDGET.
I just read the June 2009 Widget, and although it was a very good product I could find no mention of the Scope issue anywhere in the magazine.
Lee Moak mentions some issues we recently faced “…bankruptcy entry, 1113 filings, establishment of a merger fund in the event of fragmentation/consolidation, ALPA pilots appointed to the Creditors Committees, court fights, thousands of pages of transcripts, neutral panel hearings, pension termination, a hostile takeover attempt of Delta, congressional hearings, bankruptcy exit, bankruptcy claims, claim sales, antitrust, joint ventures, large-scale international expansion, overly aggressive hedge funds, more industry bankruptcies followed by several liquidations, rapidly escalating fuel prices to record highs followed by rapid descents to more reasonable levels, a sever recession – and, of course, an actualization of the long anticipated industry consolidation, also known as the merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines.”
Not to be outdone, Jim Van Sickle mentions his list of Pilot concerns, “Matters related to airport operations, hotels, infectious diseases, scheduling, training, crew meals, legislative affairs, jumpseat policy, and ultra-long-range operations…”
Crew Meals?
While all of the above on both lists are valid, I am surprised that the massive outsourcing of our domestic flying to DCI does not even merit a mention. In fact, as I said above, throughout the whole magazine I could not even find a mention of Scope.
What gives? Has ALPA national proscribed even the very mention of Scope? Or, is it just not a concern to DALPA?
Either way I think the bottom 5000 guys at DALPA better wake up or the bottom 2000 will be on the street, and the next 3000 will then be the bottom 3000.
Scoop
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
Bucking,
We may agree that Scope is the most important part of our contract but it doesn't even rise to the importance of crew meals according to the June WIDGET.
I just read the June 2009 Widget, and although it was a very good product I could find no mention of the Scope issue anywhere in the magazine.
Lee Moak mentions some issues we recently faced “…bankruptcy entry, 1113 filings, establishment of a merger fund in the event of fragmentation/consolidation, ALPA pilots appointed to the Creditors Committees, court fights, thousands of pages of transcripts, neutral panel hearings, pension termination, a hostile takeover attempt of Delta, congressional hearings, bankruptcy exit, bankruptcy claims, claim sales, antitrust, joint ventures, large-scale international expansion, overly aggressive hedge funds, more industry bankruptcies followed by several liquidations, rapidly escalating fuel prices to record highs followed by rapid descents to more reasonable levels, a sever recession – and, of course, an actualization of the long anticipated industry consolidation, also known as the merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines.”
Not to be outdone, Jim Van Sickle mentions his list of Pilot concerns, “Matters related to airport operations, hotels, infectious diseases, scheduling, training, crew meals, legislative affairs, jumpseat policy, and ultra-long-range operations…”
Crew Meals?
While all of the above on both lists are valid, I am surprised that the massive outsourcing of our domestic flying to DCI does not even merit a mention. In fact, as I said above, throughout the whole magazine I could not even find a mention of Scope.
What gives? Has ALPA national proscribed even the very mention of Scope? Or, is it just not a concern to DALPA?
Either way I think the bottom 5000 guys at DALPA better wake up or the bottom 2000 will be on the street, and the next 3000 will then be the bottom 3000.
Scoop
07-13-2009, 06:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Hear, Hear, Bar!! I thought a union was to protect its members jobs. IF Delta announces furloughs, shouldn't the union's position be that there should be not one furlough as long as ANY Delta routes are being flown by subcontractors? Shouldn't the stated position of the union be that all work done by the Company should be performed by it's employees?
I understand and agree with the philosophy and tenor of our relationship with management, ie only a profitable company produces gains for the employees. Outsourcing jobs to produce profits is counter productive to said employees, though.
I hate to ascribe motives to people I don't know. However, the evidence of a lack of scope diligence points to a money grab for the top at the expense of the bottom. Slow, Alfa, et al, please convince me I am wrong.
I am not one of those DALPA haters that blames every misfortune on the current MEC leadership. On every issue but this I am happy and think they are doing a bang up job. But the scope fight goes to the heart of representation. Not aggressively fighting to gain jobs on the bottom by recapturing outsourced flying is one thing. I can see maintaining the status quo. But acquiescing to or negotiating to further reduce scope protection for any benefit to a part of the whole is a direct contradiction of the stated mission of ALPA.
Slow, the burden of proof should not be on the rank and file. Talk us down from the ledge. Convince us to put our tin foil hats away. The condescending attitude that we get will only foster more resentment and wilder speculation. Our minds remain open, convince us!
I understand and agree with the philosophy and tenor of our relationship with management, ie only a profitable company produces gains for the employees. Outsourcing jobs to produce profits is counter productive to said employees, though.
I hate to ascribe motives to people I don't know. However, the evidence of a lack of scope diligence points to a money grab for the top at the expense of the bottom. Slow, Alfa, et al, please convince me I am wrong.
I am not one of those DALPA haters that blames every misfortune on the current MEC leadership. On every issue but this I am happy and think they are doing a bang up job. But the scope fight goes to the heart of representation. Not aggressively fighting to gain jobs on the bottom by recapturing outsourced flying is one thing. I can see maintaining the status quo. But acquiescing to or negotiating to further reduce scope protection for any benefit to a part of the whole is a direct contradiction of the stated mission of ALPA.
Slow, the burden of proof should not be on the rank and file. Talk us down from the ledge. Convince us to put our tin foil hats away. The condescending attitude that we get will only foster more resentment and wilder speculation. Our minds remain open, convince us!
07-13-2009, 07:03 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
I am not one of those DALPA haters that blames every misfortune on the current MEC leadership. On every issue but this I am happy and think they are doing a bang up job. But the scope fight goes to the heart of representation. Not aggressively fighting to gain jobs on the bottom by recapturing outsourced flying is one thing. I can see maintaining the status quo. But acquiescing to or negotiating to further reduce scope protection for any benefit to a part of the whole is a direct contradiction of the stated mission of ALPA.
Slow, the burden of proof should not be on the rank and file.
Slow, the burden of proof should not be on the rank and file.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 07-13-2009 at 07:18 AM.
07-13-2009, 07:10 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
All of this talk of 76 seat jet's had me feeling that we had missed something special. I found it this morning. And feel like I just had three minutes of my life taken that I will never get back. At the 2:10 point, I thought we were going to see how one runs out of energy at altitude in of those pesky flight maneuvers.
YouTube - Mesa Air
This is our future unless we defend it!
YouTube - Mesa Air
This is our future unless we defend it!
Although, this could be us before long. During previous downturns plenty of Delta pilots found work at the regional carriers that were replacing them. This guy wrote a pretty good blog on the subject:
http://fl250.blogspot.com/
07-13-2009, 07:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Exactly. The attitude conveyed speaks volumes on what they think of us little people. How dare you question the Mighty Oz!
I am also in agreement with you that by and large the MEC (both) have done a very good job with the exception of Scope.
Unfortunately without airplanes and routes to fly and a job all the other contract stuff means little. When those near the end of the whip are justifiably concerned over their futures given our history, and very specific threats are dismissed and due diligence not accomplished (or communicated) to I have a very uneasy gut feeling about where we headed.
Yea, the internet is a PITA. Just ask UA. Maybe we need to do a YouTube video about Scope.....
I am also in agreement with you that by and large the MEC (both) have done a very good job with the exception of Scope.
Unfortunately without airplanes and routes to fly and a job all the other contract stuff means little. When those near the end of the whip are justifiably concerned over their futures given our history, and very specific threats are dismissed and due diligence not accomplished (or communicated) to I have a very uneasy gut feeling about where we headed.
Yea, the internet is a PITA. Just ask UA. Maybe we need to do a YouTube video about Scope.....
Last edited by Fly4hire; 07-13-2009 at 07:34 AM.
07-13-2009, 07:40 AM
#WEDAT
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: 717a
Posts: 286
What gives? Has ALPA national proscribed even the very mention of Scope? Or, is it just not a concern to DALPA?
Either way I think the bottom 5000 guys at DALPA better wake up or the bottom 2000 will be on the street, and the next 3000 will then be the bottom 3000.
Scoop[/quote]
Everything has been well said. I think we have woken up, but the sleeping giant is hungover!!
The word is slowly spreading, with 12 years, if they furlough 2000, I am back where I was 5-6 yrs ago. Just like right now I am getting paid what i made in 8 years ago! Guys hired in this time frame get it, but, IMHO, I don't know if they are bringing it up in conversation enough to get it in the forefront of thought of the more senior group. Just my meager .02 as a long time reader/new poster.Burn Notice
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
