Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-03-2010, 11:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Did you ever see the training center tv interview? Training Center on the News.
03-03-2010, 11:41 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
03-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Your status shows "furloughed". If so, from where? Because if its DAL or NWA you are furloughed by choice, and so I don't think you have much to base your comments on. And if its from another carrier, you have even less evidence.
03-03-2010, 11:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
I sense a great disturbance in the force.
Or mebby it was Taco Bell...
NC elections are coming up at the March MEC meeting. Be sure to tell your reps who's on your ****e lists.
Nu
Or mebby it was Taco Bell...
NC elections are coming up at the March MEC meeting. Be sure to tell your reps who's on your ****e lists.
Nu
03-03-2010, 11:55 AM
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
If management won't operate the CRJ's at mainline, then scope relief benefits mainline pilots in the feed they provide. This is Moak's stance the best I can tell. As said before the RJ's are a temporary solution to managements long term problem; the union and the LCC's....
03-03-2010, 12:01 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
The decision to settle the scope grievance was a smart and intelligent choice not driven by emotion. We allowed the company to keep 76 seats in a few extra aircraft that in all probability they would never had had to remove anyway even if we had won the grievance in a slam dunk. By the time the grievance would have been heard its likely the company would have been in compliance.
Had we chosen to take it to the arbitrator and had he ruled against us the company would now be allowed more 76 today then with the agreement. Losing this in arbitration was a very real possibility and would have allowed the company larger numbers of RJ's for the duration of this contract. We also were able to obtain some limited furlough protection.
THis was a good agreement for the pilots that made sense. It was well thought out and the MEC approved it not Lee Moak. To recap we had almost zero possible gain even if we won the arbitration and a very serious down side if we lost.
Had we chosen to take it to the arbitrator and had he ruled against us the company would now be allowed more 76 today then with the agreement. Losing this in arbitration was a very real possibility and would have allowed the company larger numbers of RJ's for the duration of this contract. We also were able to obtain some limited furlough protection.
THis was a good agreement for the pilots that made sense. It was well thought out and the MEC approved it not Lee Moak. To recap we had almost zero possible gain even if we won the arbitration and a very serious down side if we lost.
Fact is that, it was smart. From a legal perspective, as in lawyer talk, it is a huge win to get that definition defined and in black and white. Court, or in our case arbitration is never a sure thing. Even if you have all the facts on your side, there is no guarantee that the decision will fall to your side. Those are the inconvenient facts guys.
I detest anything to do with allowing more jets on property of DCI, but in the end getting the wording to side with D-ALPA's definition in an agreement was huge. It stinks that it allowed more 76 seat jets, but the slide was capped under this interpretation of the CBA wording. Per the agreement we are capped at 153 76 seat jets until DAL adds the 763 airframe here. We are currently at 732 mainline jets, so that is a lot of growth before one more 76 seat jet shows up. (none of the options are converted so keep watching the companies feet)
We live in a legal word and now that this verbiage has a black and white meaning that both sides have agreed to, there is no more room to wrangle.
As to yamais, point on Lee. I like 12000 other pilots many not side with all of his decisions, but he is not self serving without regard to the pilots he represents. I have talked to him, and I have to tell you, that his intent is represent us the best as a single man can. I have respect for that. I do not have to agree with everything, and as an engaged pilot, I shouldn't, but to blasphemy a professional that way, is just wrong. (If it was remotely true the MEC reps would have ousted him a long time ago.)
Be ****ed, but do it for the correct reasons.
03-03-2010, 12:04 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
At last glance the total number of RJ's were just below 700. 50 more 50's parked this year.
03-03-2010, 12:05 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
03-03-2010, 12:08 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I do not like scope concessions any more than the next guy. I have to tell you that if the regional world is banking their career on another sale, they will be sorely disappointed. If you saw the way these DCI contracts are written, you would be updating your log books.
03-03-2010, 12:10 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
If management won't operate the CRJ's at mainline, then scope relief benefits mainline pilots in the feed they provide. This is Moak's stance the best I can tell. As said before the RJ's are a temporary solution to managements long term problem; the union and the LCC's....
It is not all about the pilots. I know that of all regional guys, you are aware of the financial impact of this type of arrangement is. Not going after you.
Airlines need to change this, but once again, it was a cure all band aid at the time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
