Originally Posted by gloopy

Well if that's true, that is a huge paradigm shift. While in mediation prior to their strike, they were expressly forbidden by federal mediators for even making a demand for anything with a DL management signature. How and why was that changed, and why is that poisionous practice still being used?

Originally Posted by gloopy

I wouldn't build that statue so quickly. If he does that, the DAL seniority list pilots will be in serious jeopardy as a massive land grab from PCL pilots for full or partial relative integration and full DL longevity commences.

Originally Posted by gloopy

I wouldn't build that statue so quickly. If he does that, the DAL seniority list pilots will be in serious jeopardy as a massive land grab from PCL pilots for full or partial relative integration and full DL longevity commences. That is a price far too high to pay for the symbolic first step of theoretical unity it would bring. Even if a staple was offered, agreed and signed, many would sue under the bogus "federal merger law" knowing they had nothing to lose in doing so.

Then the retroactive lawsuits from CMR, ASA, etc would start flowing in. Single Carrier between DL and PCL would be a disaster with virtually no upside beyond symbolic hyperbole and massive negative consequences that could gut our seniority list to afford one arbitrarty ill timed pilot group a windfall of epic proportions. Even the "upside" would be meaningless as we still wouldn't own the flying then that we don't own now. If they simply relabeled PCL flying as "Delta pilot flying" then they could just re-shop that same number of large RJ's into the open market, that the PCL agreement helped further lower, for an even lower RFP. They could then furlough Delta pilots, possibly after many PCL pilots got "greater than a staple" with current Delta pilots hitting the streets while current PCL pilots stayed employed in current DL planes because of their greater than a staple system wide number.

I understand your desire for one list, all flying, etc. But this is NOT how to go about it.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

This post is true if the merger happens without an agreement worked out before hand. If DALPA negotiated a straight staple of 9E beforehand as a condition of merger, and 9EALPA signed off to it, that would be the terms of the merger. Individual 9E pilots would not be able to sue for higher seniority unless they threw ALPA out like at USair, which, is not going to happen with 12,000 vs a small handful of senior Pinnacle pilots.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

PG,

If Delta pilots owned all Delta flying, regardless, then any NEW operation would by default be Delta flying for the Delta pilots. Song is an example of this principle in action.

If we define our flying narrowly to what we perform, then NEW flying by definition is NOT OURS. As the Air Canada pilots discovered as they watched 757's fly way at the hands of AC Jazz "RJ pilots."

Consider ....

Originally Posted by gloopy

I wouldn't build that statue so quickly. If he does that, the DAL seniority list pilots will be in serious jeopardy as a massive land grab from PCL pilots for full or partial relative integration and full DL longevity commences. That is a price far too high to pay for the symbolic first step of theoretical unity it would bring. Even if a staple was offered, agreed and signed, many would sue under the bogus "federal merger law" knowing they had nothing to lose in doing so.

Originally Posted by slowplay

You might want to choose a different example, as there was no Air Canada flying on Thomas Cook aircraft by Jazz.

Thomas Cook and that flying went away...

Your example isn't pertinent.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

ACL65,

The problem with a "conference call" is that the rules having to do with setting the agenda and conducting the meeting are subverted. A conference call is much more of a "presentation" style where the party owning the call mostly controls who speaks. While I know someone can speak up on a "go to meeting" it would be exasperating for someone to present their case in the fashion I do on this web board. Frankly, it would seem impolite. Is there a "Roberts Rules" for iPhone app?

Further, how is the vote recorded? Where can members see the recap & notes? Matters of union governance need to be conducted in open session. Members should be afforded the opportunity to address the MEC. How is any of that done via a closed loop call?

But, on this issue impolitic action is needed. Folks who have spent their whole professional lives following a strict Chain of Command need both the information and the opportunity to speak up.

Of course, my Reps have not called me to advise how our MEC came up with their "finding." I'll admit I'm guessing they at least held an informal conference call.