Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-02-2011, 09:13 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
01-02-2011, 09:20 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
It is of not consequence if they are in production or not. The reps are committed to holding the line on sjs. Period. They literally dismiss the notion of a scope sale.
It is simple, ask the questions and if you do not like what they are saying, work to effect change.
It is simple, ask the questions and if you do not like what they are saying, work to effect change.
01-02-2011, 09:22 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
That's not the question. The question is: Will the reps follow the will of the represented? Or will the reps bow to a secret brief that just can't be shared with the rank and file? I have no doubt about the "process" and I know how it works. If you don't understand how a powerful national union and MEC chairman can smash the will of a well intentioned rep, then you simply ignore history.
O'Malley not mentioning outsourcing, even though it is so highly valued by our reps does not bode well. The pilots and our reps are going to have to fight the company, the MEC leadership and ALPA when it comes to outsourcing. How sick and dysfunctional is that!
Carl
O'Malley not mentioning outsourcing, even though it is so highly valued by our reps does not bode well. The pilots and our reps are going to have to fight the company, the MEC leadership and ALPA when it comes to outsourcing. How sick and dysfunctional is that!
Carl
I may be proven wrong, but I do not see the current makeup of the MEC Council buying anything. At best there is a slight majority for pragmatism on the minor issues, but on major ones like scope, I do not see the reps bowing that way whatsoever.
WRT to scope, I am thinking of the current reps, and I cannot think of one that would willfully sell scope. Not one.
01-02-2011, 09:29 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Carl;
We may, we may not, who knows. They are fighting to keep a line they have too. CAL has a line they are fighting to keep. I am sure if we merged with SWA we would be fighting for their line too. There would be no fight if it was UAL and LCC that were merging. Keep that in mind. It is there because CAL has better scope than the rest of the majors.
As for us. We need to get scope in order, no doubt about that. I want what you want. A agreement in the PWA that states that there will be no new, renewed, extended or modified ASA, Code Shares, or JV's signed without our approval. Period.
We also need a block hr min, and a min percentage of Skyteam flying that all the skyteam carriers and Skyteam management sign on to.
I have no idea what the MEC or MEC Council (reps) will do. We need a survey to find our majority position first. Once that is known the reps will have the data to give direction the the MEC and the Neg Committee. I know what I will be putting down, and Carl, it is not COLA. Not by a country mile. I do not just want a leading contract, I want a precedent setting contract.
As I have said, I want to see what UCAL, AMR and LCC (grievance) do prior to us opening before we solidify a position, but one thing is for certain, there is great work to be done. With where the industry is, much of this can be done quickly. Some not so much, and what we do with that part depends on the resolve and position of this pilot group. Same as it has always been.
I know I am ready to be pleasantly surprised by our position.
01-02-2011, 09:39 AM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,716
They are place holders. The fact that you seem to have not gotten is that the MEC Council (You reps) are in no mood to TA anything that would give any more scope up. Period. Call your reps and ask em. I have not found one rep in our entire system that has given a conditional response to that question. I have phrased it every which way, and the answer is always the same:
I do not care how it is packaged, I will not be voting for anything that further relaxes the 76 seat limit. Same holds true for other scope as well.
I do not care how it is packaged, I will not be voting for anything that further relaxes the 76 seat limit. Same holds true for other scope as well.
The 76 seat settlement is a prime example of this - I bet that if the membership was asked, or even a sampling of the membership was taken, DALPA would of fought for it. But, because they didn't ask, they made their own decision. I know that's what they are chosen to do, and they had their reasons but making decisions about stuff like without any input gives the MEC a bad name.
I think we are worried that we'll get a contract without better scope protection. Then, when people complain, the response would be, "oh, we didn't think it was important" because people think the MEC and the Neg committee "know what we want".
01-02-2011, 09:44 AM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,716
In short on 380 equates to about three 767's worth of flying for us. It is not a block hr only metric.
I know how you feel, but at the end of the day we at DAL fly just over 50% of the North Atlantic lift based on the ratio of the JV. That is 50%+ for DAL pilots and 50%- for AF, KLM, and Alitalia combined.
If Virgin Atlantic is included in this JV I would hope to keep the current ratio the same.
I know how you feel, but at the end of the day we at DAL fly just over 50% of the North Atlantic lift based on the ratio of the JV. That is 50%+ for DAL pilots and 50%- for AF, KLM, and Alitalia combined.
If Virgin Atlantic is included in this JV I would hope to keep the current ratio the same.
Personally, I don't mind being more efficient and "earning our keep". SWA pilot are paid well, but they are very efficient, both in the cockpit and out (training costs, etc). I know we're not going to do 25 minute turns in a 757, but lets get the operation tuned up and we can do better than an hour and a half turns for the pilots.
01-02-2011, 09:48 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Iah;
A few points.
1) The 76 seat settlement was a grievance settlement and did not require the MEC Councils vote. I think from discussions with many reps, that the process was not the one that should have been taken.
2) Why was scope not mentioned? Ask Tim. I have no idea, I did not write the letter!
Fact is that no matter what he would have written or omitted, someone would have gotten upset. Without a contract survey out there, Pay is something that is easy to talk about, and is a known quantity. It is something that was taken from everyone. The scope concessions were different for each premerger group.
In the end, I am not going to lose sleep over this first letter. I know my reps position and the fact is that as long as they are there, SJS sales are off the table. We will fly them here. Period.
A few points.
1) The 76 seat settlement was a grievance settlement and did not require the MEC Councils vote. I think from discussions with many reps, that the process was not the one that should have been taken.
2) Why was scope not mentioned? Ask Tim. I have no idea, I did not write the letter!
Fact is that no matter what he would have written or omitted, someone would have gotten upset. Without a contract survey out there, Pay is something that is easy to talk about, and is a known quantity. It is something that was taken from everyone. The scope concessions were different for each premerger group.
In the end, I am not going to lose sleep over this first letter. I know my reps position and the fact is that as long as they are there, SJS sales are off the table. We will fly them here. Period.
01-02-2011, 09:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Heyas,
Totally disagree with the above.
In UnionSpeak, what you don't say is louder than what you do...by several orders of magnitude.
Everything I've heard from people in the know is that the outgoing admin is going to look like a chatterbox compared to the incoming admin.
Nu
Totally disagree with the above.
In UnionSpeak, what you don't say is louder than what you do...by several orders of magnitude.
Everything I've heard from people in the know is that the outgoing admin is going to look like a chatterbox compared to the incoming admin.
Nu
Last edited by shiznit; 01-02-2011 at 09:56 AM. Reason: its/it's
01-02-2011, 09:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
01-02-2011, 09:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
It's getting the attention of everyone except our new MEC chairman who REFUSED to mention it in his first letter to the membership.
In all your work to "educate" the poor old stupid senior people you constantly fly with, you're blind to how much education YOU need. The education of not being scammed by what people say, and pay attention to what people actually do. The education of the bloated, and conflicted mess that is ALPA national. The bloated and conflicted mess that you fight so hard to keep in power despite their actions.
Carl
In all your work to "educate" the poor old stupid senior people you constantly fly with, you're blind to how much education YOU need. The education of not being scammed by what people say, and pay attention to what people actually do. The education of the bloated, and conflicted mess that is ALPA national. The bloated and conflicted mess that you fight so hard to keep in power despite their actions.
Carl
Happy new year!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
