Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-20-2009, 05:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Question for the North Guys - If I understand this correctly, normally advancements would get filled prior to displacements - is that correct?
If thats the case, and its changed, I can see why some guys would be upset - its a change to the status quo.
However, I don't understand the logic of not letting displacements fill openings first. A guy getting displaced has no choice - it seems reasonable to fill openings with them but whatever happens - I guess this is a good argument for not having 20 year fences.
Scoop
If thats the case, and its changed, I can see why some guys would be upset - its a change to the status quo.
However, I don't understand the logic of not letting displacements fill openings first. A guy getting displaced has no choice - it seems reasonable to fill openings with them but whatever happens - I guess this is a good argument for not having 20 year fences.
Scoop
08-20-2009, 05:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Under the APA system, the vacancy would be filled by the senior bidder first, but the displaced guy could still get into whatever seat he could hold by pushing a junior someone off the bottom of the list in that category. Under MOU 7, the displacee gets the vacancy and the senior bidders are stuck where they are.
08-20-2009, 06:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Slow,
Reference this and your previous post you are way off base. The suggestion this is about LEC election posturing is offensive. The abrogation of seniority is very real. The MOU did modify the TWG agreed to process to potentially harm DAL-N pilots. The argument that TWG agreements were only a handshake is preposterous, and even if you use your own argument that we have been under the DAL PWA section 22 since CBAID, you still modified the contract with the MOU because the you are not following section 22 (posting of vacancies). It required an LOA, period.
The utter arrogance to think you did not even need to bounce this off of the elected Reps or the pilots who have been using the previous system for a decade is amazing. Even if the Co. can tweak the staffing and block hours to show there would have been no awards, the process that led us here is fatally flawed.
Y'all screwed up, are too arrogant to admit it and fix it, and no matter how many times you repeat the spin, it's still just that.
I find it especially ironic that while any anonymous postings from APC posted on the DAL WB are lambasted as internet rumors, the MEC is here themselves trying to do damage control.
Oh the web we weave when we first start to deceive....
Reference this and your previous post you are way off base. The suggestion this is about LEC election posturing is offensive. The abrogation of seniority is very real. The MOU did modify the TWG agreed to process to potentially harm DAL-N pilots. The argument that TWG agreements were only a handshake is preposterous, and even if you use your own argument that we have been under the DAL PWA section 22 since CBAID, you still modified the contract with the MOU because the you are not following section 22 (posting of vacancies). It required an LOA, period.
The utter arrogance to think you did not even need to bounce this off of the elected Reps or the pilots who have been using the previous system for a decade is amazing. Even if the Co. can tweak the staffing and block hours to show there would have been no awards, the process that led us here is fatally flawed.
Y'all screwed up, are too arrogant to admit it and fix it, and no matter how many times you repeat the spin, it's still just that.
I find it especially ironic that while any anonymous postings from APC posted on the DAL WB are lambasted as internet rumors, the MEC is here themselves trying to do damage control.
Oh the web we weave when we first start to deceive....
1. There has been no abrogation of seniority. You "fear" there might be one. Hence the "tempest."
2. The Reps were briefed and provided direction to the negotiating committee. I'm told that many of them acknowledged that on a conference call yesterday. No arrogance there.
3. The administration has told the reps and the comm chair has been on the forum saying that they could have done a better job. No arrogance there. BTW, there's nothing to be fixed as far as MOU-7. It follows the direction and produces the MEC's desired result. One more note, the MEC Administration is going to screw up again in the future. There is no way to get through a merging of the disparate cultures of two large MEC's and go through all the operational changes of a merger without screwing things up. What is important to note is how different individuals react to those challenges.
4. I must have hit pretty close to home. It's good to know that neither you nor the other heating element are running for LEC, so we can be assured your motives are pure. I note that you didn't respond to the north only e-mail, nor the titling of a post to be divisive, nor the use of the names of two north committee chairs as sources on how badly the administration screwed up. You printed all that without doing the basic research or due diligence needed to find out if there was a screw-up. I find it especially ironic that you're here trying to do damage control.
08-20-2009, 06:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
AR,
You may be right... Personally, with my 5 digit seniority number, I don't think it will make much difference to me. I was just trying explain why guys are getting so fired up about this. A lot of guys have been waiting a long time for vacancies on wide bodies. Now with the PRIP they thought they were finally going to get a shot only to have the rules changed on them. I understand their frustration, but I also think you are right that there is risk involved in fighting this.
You may be right... Personally, with my 5 digit seniority number, I don't think it will make much difference to me. I was just trying explain why guys are getting so fired up about this. A lot of guys have been waiting a long time for vacancies on wide bodies. Now with the PRIP they thought they were finally going to get a shot only to have the rules changed on them. I understand their frustration, but I also think you are right that there is risk involved in fighting this.
Last edited by nwaf16dude; 08-20-2009 at 06:07 PM. Reason: error
08-20-2009, 06:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
4. I must have hit pretty close to home. It's good to know that neither you nor the other heating element are running for LEC, so we can be assured your motives are pure.
I note that you didn't respond to the north only e-mail, nor the titling of a post to be divisive,
nor the use of the names of two north committee chairs as sources on how badly the administration screwed up.
You printed all that without doing the basic research or due diligence needed to find out if there was a screw-up.
I find it especially ironic that you're here trying to do damage control.
BTW, the C20 Reps seem to disagree about the fact that the Reps were informed. From a newsletter just published:
"....The Administration has committed to distribute a comprehensive communication on MOU 7. Following the distribution of this communication, we will review the content and provide our view point and recommendations as necessary. While we do not participate on the forum, we are perplexed with the comments from some individuals that state we had prior knowledge of MOU 7. We did not. Any superficial briefing on this subject proved to be woefully inadequate and required numerous facts to be independently correlated.
As noted in the previous Council 20 Update, “in our opinion, it was the process leading up to MOU#7 that is causing the concern for the North pilots. We do not believe this is a sinister plot or the result of malicious intent by any of the parties involved. We do believe the input of the elected representatives (beyond our initial guidance) and better communication from the MEC Administration could have prevented this problem”
As noted in the previous Council 20 Update, “in our opinion, it was the process leading up to MOU#7 that is causing the concern for the North pilots. We do not believe this is a sinister plot or the result of malicious intent by any of the parties involved. We do believe the input of the elected representatives (beyond our initial guidance) and better communication from the MEC Administration could have prevented this problem”
08-20-2009, 06:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
I don't speak for the MEC. You'll have to contact your reps for their view. Here's mine, as posted to JoeMerchant in another thread:
What I want is Delta pilots to do Delta flying. There are some places where the economic or regulatory imperatives don't allow that (our international JV, or the Alaska codeshare for example.) We shouldn't do that flying. Where there is no rational reason to share our code, we shouldn't codeshare.
As I've said before, the economics of our ability to operate small jets is reviewed regularly. The playing field keeps changing due to economic resets built into the DCI contracts. I believe that we will see scope "recovery" going forward.
The context of Moak's comments regarding AMR are simple. AMR has an insufficient amount of high yield feed in certain markets to help mainline profitability. At current wage rates, plus what APA is demanding (52%) AMR management will not bring small jets to mainline. Most of those markets are no longer economical for AMR's smallest jet, the Super 80. Lower cost competitors (including Delta) are picking off AMR's premium feed. Consequently, AMR is parking a ton of them (Super 80's) and backfilling with even larger, higher performing aircraft (737-800). They're trying to use a limited RJ fleet against Compass, RAH, JetBlue, AAI, etc. There's a reason they had a $319 million operating loss last quarter, when AMR management has historically been one of the saviest financial (not labor) management teams around.
Again, jmo, and I'm probably wrong.
08-20-2009, 06:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
I'm easily confused. You stated that the problem was an abrogation of seniority. There has been no abrogation of seniority.
Is there a different problem you'd like to discuss? All those other ramblings seem to be distracting from what you said the problem was.
Is there a different problem you'd like to discuss? All those other ramblings seem to be distracting from what you said the problem was.
08-20-2009, 06:42 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
O.K. time for a new topic......
08-20-2009, 06:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Not yet, but the MOU allows for that distinct possibility. If you want to parse words and say no damage has occurred yet knock yourself out. There are some very nuanced differences in how vacancies are defined for awarding purposes between the AE and APA process. You can play a shell game with category block hours and excess staffing to support your assertions, but it does not negate the fact that some very harmful contractual language was introduced that could have been easily avoided.
08-20-2009, 06:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Not yet, but the MOU allows for that distinct possibility. If you want to parse words and say no damage has occurred yet knock yourself out. There are some very nuanced differences in how vacancies are defined for awarding purposes between the AE and APA process. You can play a shell game with category block hours and excess staffing to support your assertions, but it does not negate the fact that some very harmful contractual language was introduced that could have been easily avoided.
Personally, I hope your quest to throw out MOU-7 is successful and we go with a "straight" APA. That way I'll get to bid the 330 a lot sooner through the AE process!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
