Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-06-2009, 06:54 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 know it is being talked about. As I see it, many at the regionals would not buy on to the idea to limit their own growth unless there was a major quid pro quo from mainline. We are to self serving. Now a seniority number would be the best solution, but the fact is that is a pipe dream.
The idea of economically jacking up the regional house to make it harder to outsource is being looked at. I see the intent behind it, and unless the company is willing to go with the carriers we dictate, it will be very difficult to do.
The idea of economically jacking up the regional house to make it harder to outsource is being looked at. I see the intent behind it, and unless the company is willing to go with the carriers we dictate, it will be very difficult to do.
If the Company was willing to "go with the carriers we dictate" the easiest solution would be to dictate that Delta pilots will do the flying. There is nothing illegal about scoping your own flying. What's illegal is being arbitrary, or discriminatory. For instance, specifying that only airlines with certain characteristics (flow through / preferential hiring / jets for jobs / flow down ) get flying awards is discriminatory because it does not treat members at the regionals equally (they wholly owned carriers had fought these provisions). To be fair and equal it is preferred that flying be brought back to mainline - that treats pilots equally and is not discriminatory.
What is really being "looked at" serves as only a distraction to divert the attention of those concerned with scope and those asking for restoration. When this concept fails (and there is no way it can succeed) then the response will be "we tried."
No, they are not trying to tighten scope. They do not want to tighten scope. They simply want us to shut up about it.
10-06-2009, 07:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Stage Left
Posts: 366
Does, "They..." include DALPA leadership, in your estimation?
Since when do "hiring criteria" on regional partners qualify as "discriminatory"? They are not employees. What you are describing is simply qualifications required per contractual language negotiated with management. Just like "Masters Education Required" for management employees.
I don't mean disrespect just clarifying. Flow through is already at Mesaba and Compass, not Pinnacle or ASA. That's not discriminatory.
Last edited by DeltaPaySoon; 10-06-2009 at 07:22 AM.
10-06-2009, 07:09 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Well, lets put it this way.
If the Company was willing to "go with the carriers we dictate" the easiest solution would be to dictate that Delta pilots will do the flying. There is nothing illegal about scoping your own flying. What's illegal is being arbitrary, or discriminatory. For instance, specifying that only airlines with certain characteristics (flow through / preferential hiring / jets for jobs / flow down ) get flying awards is discriminatory because it does not treat members at the regionals equally (they wholly owned carriers had fought these provisions). To be fair and equal it is preferred that flying be brought back to mainline - that treats pilots equally and is not discriminatory.
What is really being "looked at" serves as only a distraction to divert the attention of those concerned with scope and those asking for restoration. When this concept fails (and there is no way it can succeed) then the response will be "we tried."
No, they are not trying to tighten scope. They do not want to tighten scope. They simply want us to shut up about it.
If the Company was willing to "go with the carriers we dictate" the easiest solution would be to dictate that Delta pilots will do the flying. There is nothing illegal about scoping your own flying. What's illegal is being arbitrary, or discriminatory. For instance, specifying that only airlines with certain characteristics (flow through / preferential hiring / jets for jobs / flow down ) get flying awards is discriminatory because it does not treat members at the regionals equally (they wholly owned carriers had fought these provisions). To be fair and equal it is preferred that flying be brought back to mainline - that treats pilots equally and is not discriminatory.
What is really being "looked at" serves as only a distraction to divert the attention of those concerned with scope and those asking for restoration. When this concept fails (and there is no way it can succeed) then the response will be "we tried."
No, they are not trying to tighten scope. They do not want to tighten scope. They simply want us to shut up about it.
I was just trying to put it a little nicer and you stated it in a more direct way
10-06-2009, 07:10 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Does, "They..." include DALPA leadership, in your estimation?
Since when do "hiring criteria" on regional partners qualify as "descriminatory"? They are not employees. What you are describing is simply qualifications required. Just like "Masters Education Required" for management employees.
Since when do "hiring criteria" on regional partners qualify as "descriminatory"? They are not employees. What you are describing is simply qualifications required. Just like "Masters Education Required" for management employees.
Who would be promoting jacking up the pay rates and QOL of the regionals to make their costs more in line with mainline?
10-06-2009, 07:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
On another note, I had them assign me a 0500 SC the other day. It was on my schedule the day prior, but I never acknowledged it because I wanted to see when they would actually notify me of it since I have always just acknowledged via I-Crew. They finally called me at 0400 to notify me of a SC assignmnet that started one hour later. Since I already knew about it and wanted a SC credit, I just said OK. I did let them know that they should probably have notified me 11 hours earlier.
By the way - they have to give you 10 hours notification prior to SC, not 12, so they would not have had to notify you 11 hours earlier - just 9.
10-06-2009, 07:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Stage Left
Posts: 366
I hear you on management letting ALPA negotiate "handcuffs" however if scope is ever going to mean anything, this type of language is going to have to be included or it will forever be worthless and left up to "bought and paid for" arbitrators.
10-06-2009, 07:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
Nope. No callout is possible on an x-day. If the company has any flying for you on your first on-call day, they must assign it NLT 1500 on your last X day. Simple as that.
So let's say you check your schedule at 1700 on your last X-day. Either there will be a trip assigned, with a sign in NLT 1200 (or short call reporting NLT 1000), or there will be nothing.
Assuming there is nothing, you just assume the long call 12-hour window beginning at midnight.
So let's say you check your schedule at 1700 on your last X-day. Either there will be a trip assigned, with a sign in NLT 1200 (or short call reporting NLT 1000), or there will be nothing.
Assuming there is nothing, you just assume the long call 12-hour window beginning at midnight.
10-06-2009, 07:31 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I sure hope so. It would go a long way in stopping deals like what RAH did from happening.
I hear you on management letting ALPA negotiate "handcuffs" however if scope is ever going to mean anything, this type of language is going to have to be included or it will forever be worthless and left up to "bought and paid for" arbitrators.
I hear you on management letting ALPA negotiate "handcuffs" however if scope is ever going to mean anything, this type of language is going to have to be included or it will forever be worthless and left up to "bought and paid for" arbitrators.
That would possible allow us the ability to jack the house up in terms of their pay. But doing it in the DCI mess that is currently being used is a useless act.
10-06-2009, 07:51 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
For instance - Northwest did not want NWA funds used to purchase RJ's. So they used their contractual scope to try to steer the flying awards to non owned carriers. Delta did sort of the same thing. The problem for Comair and ASA pilots is that their union was used to steer flying to SkyWest, Republic and other non union, non owned, carriers. That MAY BE illegal and it certainly isn't in keeping with what's best for our profession.
A BETTER solution is to use our power to restore the flying to mainline.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-06-2009 at 10:01 AM.
10-06-2009, 08:03 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL - IMHO that would require our using mainline bargaining capital to jerrymander the flying awards. The only LEGITIMATE use of our bargaining capital is to bring the flying here.
One of the many problems with using scope as a remote to control ANOTHER airline's flying is that it makes the controlling MEC (ALPA) responsible for the decision.
For instance - Northwest did not want NWA funds used to purchase RJ's. So they used their contractual scope to try to steer the flying awards to non owned carriers. Delta did sort of the same thing. The problem for Comair and ASA pilots is that their union was used to steer flying to SkyWest, Republic and other non union, non owned, carriers. That MAY BE illegal and it certainly isn't in keeping with what's best for our profession.
Delta Pay Soon - are you thinking "discrimination" in sense of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I'm talking discrimination as it refers to ALPA's duty to its members.
One of the many problems with using scope as a remote to control ANOTHER airline's flying is that it makes the controlling MEC (ALPA) responsible for the decision.
For instance - Northwest did not want NWA funds used to purchase RJ's. So they used their contractual scope to try to steer the flying awards to non owned carriers. Delta did sort of the same thing. The problem for Comair and ASA pilots is that their union was used to steer flying to SkyWest, Republic and other non union, non owned, carriers. That MAY BE illegal and it certainly isn't in keeping with what's best for our profession.
Delta Pay Soon - are you thinking "discrimination" in sense of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I'm talking discrimination as it refers to ALPA's duty to its members.
What we are discussing is the policy that seems to be going forward currently. The ugly fact is that this group needs to shore up its bottom and top end and soon. The world is an ugly place and if we continue to float along in this current state we are going to get hammered when massive inflation then deflation take place in the coming years.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
