satchip

The new NYC reps are improving two way communication. I sent an electronic communication to Council 66 and received phone call from my rep almost as soon as the special MEC meeting was over. We chatted for about 45 min. They are very aware of the scope issues and and vowing to change how we've done business. Seems like a good guy. Honeymoon period is till in effect.

Jesse

New DOT rule tackles fees, bumping, flight delays

New DOT rule tackles fees, bumping, flight delays - Yahoo! News

Love the fed jumping in on this...should justify some fare increases. Now give me my share of it, and don't hoard it all to yourselves!

Razor

Also from the FB page

Council66 While we don't like the holes in our contract and need to address those issues via section 6, there is no contactual violation with the RAH STS ruling. The MEC Communications will be publishing more detailed information in the next few days.

Jesse

Ray LaHood on the new regulations: "It's just common sense that if an airline loses your bag or you get bumped from a flight because it was oversold, you should be reimbursed."

Yeah, and it's just common sense that after paying for medicare and social security all my adult life that if the ponzi scheme suddenly comes up short, I should be reimbursed.

hockeypilot44

There are thousands of pilots at Delta that disagree. Why are there holes in our contract? I thought ALPA has the best contract lawyers in the business. I'm surprised DPA hasn't gained more momentum. I watched ALPA make a deal with Delta relaxing our scope. They claimed they didn't want to risk losing in arbitration. Since that deal, I've watched three separate airlines take on more DC-9 replacements. I'm fed up with watching our jobs go away.

Bucking Bar

Hockey44,

Great question: "Why are there holes in our contract?"

Again, you need to consider why these holes exist in our contract. They are not accidental. Our scope language was REMOVED on purpose.

Lee Moak used to put on a presentation explaining how outsourcing improved profitability which made for better Delta pilot contracts. Outsourcing is more profitable if you have more vendors competing and driving the price down. Contractual provisions were REMOVED to increase cost competition among DCI carriers and to facilitate the sale of Delta's subsidiaries (ASA, Comair, Compass, Mesaba, etc)

So now our MEC says ***!? The time to have asked was back when our administration made these changes to beat up on and sell our DCI carriers. Many of us wrote and told them the risks and where these plans would fail. Some of us asked for resolutions to study these changes & got them passed. But at the end of the day politics overwhelmed objective argument.

If anyone is pleased Comair got mostly destroyed try to really enjoy that feeling of vindication. The cost was an enormous hole in our scope that operators can run a holding company through.

DAL 88 Driver

Exactly. I've read the arguments both ways. And this RAH thing seems to me to be a clear violation of at least the intent of the language in our scope clause. Why is ALPA's inclination to interpret this in the most favorable way to the company and the least favorable way to our pilot group? Sorry, but I want an association that will fight for our pilot group... especially given how much ground we have lost and need to recover! At this point, I think ALPA has proven they are not up to the task... or have other, more important priorities. My vote goes to DPA. ALPA continues to prove they cannot be "fixed from within."

Bucking Bar

DAL88 Driver,

See the post above yours.

How is the DPA any different? They have not published any road map, or set of principles, which give any indication their administration would be any different than the status quo.

DAL 88 Driver

Well, you have a point. The language in our contract should be iron clad. A good lawyer, who's only objective is doing what's best for his/her client (the Delta pilots), should be able to easily achieve that. Why was the language written so loosely... so that ALPA could interpret it in the most convenient way at the time? I don't know. But what I do know is that the intent of the language seems clear to me. And I think a good case can be made that this is indeed a violation of our scope clause. Just read FTB's stuff on this... he's done a GREAT job of laying out the case.

Again, it comes back to who I want representing me. At this point, I'll go with a relative unknown that is at least trying, versus a known quantity that is obviously NOT trying and/or has other agendas.

Bucking Bar

DAL88Driver,

Your frustration is understood. If the DPA was talking unity, or basic unionism, I'd be interested. But they are not. They parrot the same wrong headed political crud that got us where we are at now.

More to the point, the language in our contract was stronger and functioned in the case of ACA which was booted from DCI when they started Indy Air. Then our Administration purposely removed that language with the goals of:

• Increasing DCI competition to drive down costs. (At the time the thought was "we are having to take concessions, shouldn't they too")
• Making it possible to sell owned DCI assets (At the time the thought was "why are we investing "our" money in connection operations. Further management desperately needed the cash from asset sales. The sale of ASA preserved Delta's reserves required to process credit card transactions. It was a very near death experience for the Corporation)

Again, this language was no accident. It was intentional.