acl65pilot

Slow I understand the PWA very well. This part is in plain English. The thrus behind my point was and is that pesky little thing called intent. Same with the interpretation that caused the 76 seat scope "understanding"

This time the interpretation would be the deffinition of unavailable. We see it as blanket ad anytime no matter what but I am sure as the day is long that the company lawyers mean it to be by devices like Delta or Compass making loa2006-10&12 unavailable, not that the airplanes were sold or awarded to other operators for thier cooperation with redoing their air service agreements. In this senario the flow would be unavailable because CPS does not exist. We have talked about if they were sold, not if they were parted out.

I understand and hear you intent behind what the pwa states, what I am saying is that the language does not address this situation. It addresses a wholesale sale of cps and it's certificate. In the end it comes down to interpretation of the language because it is not spelled out. It is a fear.

Not to pander slow, but as I gave stated I can see the MEC's concerned and why some feel this action is warrented. I put mysel in your shoes and I see you points of view. I just think that there were better outcomes than this. Is it the end of the world? No but it makes restoration and the fight at the 100 seat threshold tha much more difficult. We need to pick our battle position and fight from there.

Bucking Bar

Sorta. We agreed to waive fNWA LOA flow back to ASA & Comair. Since we did not have that language before the merger, it was considered "status quo" to not have those rights after the merger.As ACL pointed out, we run a huge risk by tying our scope to individual Certificates. Management has demonstrated the ease of moving aircraft across Certificates in DCI. ALPA's mistake in not binding holding companies effects us too. The same tricks that facilitate DCI whipsaw are just as easily used to side step our "cosmetic" flow agreements.

slowplay

Let's turn that around. Can you prove your assertion?

Look at the layers of penalties in our book compared to everyone else's book. Look at the results. Can I connect the dots through language alone? No. But you should be smart enough to connect the dots as well.

One other thing...it's not popular to say, but relationships are important. Most other trade unions are content to "fight" management. It's real comfortable to walk in circles, beat your chest and huddle around the 55 gallon drum. This administration tried a different strategy, one of engagement. They've been in front of Congress, the State Department, regulators, Bankers, and Wall Street, but the first step was a birthday party.

That "party" revealed a clear divide in Delta management. Those that invited the pilots are still here. Those that didn't (or didn't get an invitation themselves) are gone (and good riddance). That simple act was noted throughout mid-level management and changed the way they did business. The MEC solidified that paradigm change during Parker's hostile takeover attempt.

You ask if I can "prove it." I say the proof is in the results. No furloughs. A Delta pilot heading the ARC. The FAA Administrator coming to the Delta MEC before he spoke with ALPA Intl. Congressmen and Senators coming to Delta MEC meetings. The "open skies" negotiator coming to the MEC for input on Haneda and Narita. The elevation of the Pilot Director to full voting member prior to the merger. Contract stability with pay increases, stock issuance and a smooth merger, things nobody else have done in this environment.

Have you seen any other labor union do that?

I think the answer to your question is obvious. You get to make your own decision. If you disagree, I'll ask you to provide proof, you know, language that supports how all the above got done with nothing in the book about it...

Play the scene from "A few good men" where Tom Cruise snatches the "rule book" from Kevin Bacon and asks about the chow hall...

NuGuy

Heyas Bar,

Funny, that language incorporated from the NWA LOA's doesn't seem to cover "well, ya know, we sort of decided that it doesn't apply to XYZ, so really, it's ok"

Rather, it simply said that if the flow becomes unavailable, the number snaps back. Despite how it got that way, it would seem that the provisions of that section would now apply.

It doesn't seem to specify WHY or HOW it became unavailable. Maybe I should fill out a worksheet?

Nu

slowplay

Yeah, fill out a worksheet! That's the ticket! Better send it to Ken Watts before BP5!

If I file enough grievances, even those not supported by the facts, I'll be relevant! If I beat my keyboard long enough, maybe I'll get voted in to council 20!

Uh, but then I'd have to make decisions that would have real consequences for the pilots I represent. I might have to be accountable. I might have to deliver results. Oh, that doesn't sound like nearly as much fun as typing and sniping...

but it makes great mashed potatoes!

Maybe you ought to try a low-carb diet!

NuGuy

Heyas,

Guess that MEC meeting wasn't as tiring as one was led to believe. Lot's of posts today, there, Slow....

Nu

Bucking Bar

Nu,

I agree with you. It is in our contract, but it remains academic until someone gets furloughed & there are jobs at ASA or Comair. So far by avoiding furloughs it has not been tested.

At the end of the day I'm satisfied simply if everyone understands flow down off property is not a substitute for scope. It is another mechanism to outsource Delta jobs.

I'd perfer stronger scope, or TDY while remaining an active duty Delta pilot. Either of these concepts would provide better job security than a flow down.

80ktsClamp

Slow,

I agree that having a relationship with management is important. What this administration is doing, though....totally ignoring what it does not want to hear... is rediculous.

The only penalty that had really any effect on us not furlough was what the NWA guys brought on board... the CPZ flowback.

A no furlough clause is virtually toothless and mgmt will do what mgmt needs to do in the end.


As far as parking the RJ's... it's simple economics. They were used for years to beat down mainline with downward pressure on payrates (very successfully). The 50 seaters have reached that goal and are no longer needed.

Can you prove otherwise? Or are you just going to answer like usual with another question. Still having movie visions of glory playing through your head, Mr. Cruise?

slowplay

The Compass flow continues to exist even if Compass is represented by their own MEC. If the Compass MEC were to remove the flow at some future negotiation, then Delta would be short 36 76 seat aircraft. For ACL, that plain language and intent is not in dispute. Management acknowledged that at the table.

NuGuy

Heyas Bar,

%100 agreement. When DAL pilots get furloughed to CPZ and MSA, they will NOT be treated as DAL pilots when the next merger comes along.

And they will not be represented by DAL pilots, either. Yikes.

And, that, my friend, is bad, bad news.

Nu