Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-31-2013, 06:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030
They are not improving. The company is just flat out ignoring our widebody jv scope. We are not sure what to do about it. The scope is good, but the company will be out of compliance and does not seem to care. Our union is now selling us that we are still doing our fair share of the flying. Our contractual share is more than our fair share. They don't seem to care either. I'm not really sure who is representing us on scope.
07-31-2013, 07:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,177
They are not improving. The company is just flat out ignoring our widebody jv scope. We are not sure what to do about it. The scope is good, but the company will be out of compliance and does not seem to care. Our union is now selling us that we are still doing our fair share of the flying. Our contractual share is more than our fair share. They don't seem to care either. I'm not really sure who is representing us on scope.
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
Everything else you posted is your opinion, and bordering on paranoia. The "fair share" buzzword is being overhyped and taken out of context. Nobody is selling you anything. This issue is receiving the proper amount of attention from your union. Check with your rep if you don't believe me.
07-31-2013, 08:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
This is mostly incorrect. You are stating this as fact, when it is your opinion.
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
There-in lies the problem (bolded part).
Are we going to effectively "sell" scope (jobs) in exchange for some type of monetary/contractual gain as compensation for the violation, or are we going to try and enforce our scope as it is written and tell the company to comply....
Seems from history that some sort of relief for the company is the likely case.
07-31-2013, 10:02 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
This is mostly incorrect. You are stating this as fact, when it is your opinion.
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
Everything else you posted is your opinion, and bordering on paranoia. The "fair share" buzzword is being overhyped and taken out of context. Nobody is selling you anything. This issue is receiving the proper amount of attention from your union. Check with your rep if you don't believe me.
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
Everything else you posted is your opinion, and bordering on paranoia. The "fair share" buzzword is being overhyped and taken out of context. Nobody is selling you anything. This issue is receiving the proper amount of attention from your union. Check with your rep if you don't believe me.
Respectfully, I disagree with you.
Paranoia would maybe be correct if Republic did not receive (scope noncompliance) language in section 1 of c2012 after we were told for 2-3 years that they were in compliance and we just couldn't read.
The proof will be in the pudding. What the union does when we are at the end of the measurement window will be the determiner of whether anyone is justifiably distrustful or pessimistic, or whether they were correct on their assessment of past practice being a predictor of future actions.
08-01-2013, 01:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,177
Leine,
Respectfully, I disagree with you.
Paranoia would maybe be correct if Republic did not receive (scope noncompliance) language in section 1 of c2012 after we were told for 2-3 years that they were in compliance and we just couldn't read.
The proof will be in the pudding. What the union does when we are at the end of the measurement window will be the determiner of whether anyone is justifiably distrustful or pessimistic, or whether they were correct on their assessment of past practice being a predictor of future actions.
Respectfully, I disagree with you.
Paranoia would maybe be correct if Republic did not receive (scope noncompliance) language in section 1 of c2012 after we were told for 2-3 years that they were in compliance and we just couldn't read.
The proof will be in the pudding. What the union does when we are at the end of the measurement window will be the determiner of whether anyone is justifiably distrustful or pessimistic, or whether they were correct on their assessment of past practice being a predictor of future actions.
08-01-2013, 03:42 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
disregard.
08-01-2013, 03:54 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I'll agree with that, and don't fault anyone for being cautious wrt out scope enforcement. Paranoia may have been too strong a word, and I didn't mean it as an insult to hockey (even though it came across that way.) I just don't see us "caving" and feel like guys are already resigned to "DALPA is just gonna sell scope" as if its inevitable. None of the reps I've spoken with indicate anything other than an expectation of compliance with section 1. If the company is not in compliance they have said they will pursue a remedy via the grievance process. Not a single one has said they are willing to trade for $.
Same thing I have been told when discussing it with the Reps around the system.
08-01-2013, 04:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030
This is mostly incorrect. You are stating this as fact, when it is your opinion.
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
Everything else you posted is your opinion, and bordering on paranoia. The "fair share" buzzword is being overhyped and taken out of context. Nobody is selling you anything. This issue is receiving the proper amount of attention from your union. Check with your rep if you don't believe me.
1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there
Everything else you posted is your opinion, and bordering on paranoia. The "fair share" buzzword is being overhyped and taken out of context. Nobody is selling you anything. This issue is receiving the proper amount of attention from your union. Check with your rep if you don't believe me.
08-01-2013, 05:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 377
1) Someone junior swaps out with someone senior. Result is pilots in between the two move down a number in the category.
2) A pilot who sees someone junior to him get a swap to a category he wants feels like his seniority has been abrogated.
Solution: Have a base swap board. All requested swaps must stay up for 30 days to give all pilots a chance to bid. After a swap, for bidding purposes a pilot must use the junior of either his seniority or of the pilot's seniority he is swapping with until he can hold that category through the normal AE process.
This way, no other pilot is "harmed" and two pilots are happier. Although one problem would be the IT programming for bidding using a different seniority number.
08-01-2013, 07:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,239
Would the swap incur a seat lock? Could a Capt and FO swap?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
