Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-29-2011, 09:27 PM
  #74671  
Gets Weekends Off
 
nwaf16dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Default

"..."...."............
nwaf16dude is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 01:41 AM
  #74672  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow
Speaking of slowly, are we still waiting on slowplay?
I guess it's theoretically possible that Slow is actually flying a trip rather than sitting on FPL for "expectation management" duties.

Heh, yeah, I know, pretty wild theory.

Alien abduction, then?
JungleBus is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 02:26 AM
  #74673  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
Swellbar wasnt a nagging FA, he would just click his heels together then storm out in a diva huff.
That explains it. I'm the one that got him to hate pilots.

Guess he didn't appreciate my question to him of: "How's the wife and kids?"

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 03:29 AM
  #74674  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by JungleBus
I guess it's theoretically possible that Slow is actually flying a trip rather than sitting on FPL for "expectation management" duties.

Heh, yeah, I know, pretty wild theory.

Alien abduction, then?
He made a promise to himself that the next time he was called out on something that he didn't get absolutely correct, especially by a potential donuteer, he would pick up a trip.

For premium pay...of course.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 03:39 AM
  #74675  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Default

Originally Posted by NuGuy
THAT was part of the JCBA that the fNWA guys had no hand in crafting. That was the way it was going to be, period.

Had the fDAL negotiators NOT given that away (and it was GIVEN away), we'd either still have CPZ or we'd have our DC-9 replacements.
I'll be back late tonight when I have more time, but I see nobody from the assembled forum wisdom has challenged this divisive, revisionist tripe.

The ENTIRE fNWA NC was in NYC for over a month working on the pre-merger announcement JCBA. Much of the fNWA committee structure (including Comm, R&I, and CA) was in NYC, eventually to be joined by the entire fNWA MEC. By late February a JCBA had been agreed to by the 3 parties, but there was no SLI, so no deal. Much of that same process was repeated in March, then the entire process was repeated again in June. Section 1 of the DAL PWA was substantially altered by the JCBA to include things like the fNWA Alaska code share, Compass, and the new agreement tightened permitted aircraft limits compared to the previous stand alone DAL and NWA contracts.

If I reversed the names above and said had the fNWA negotiators not given away CPZ we wouldn't have this problem, that the fDAL guys had no hand in crafting the language...how would that read? While the DAL PWA provided the framework for the JOINT CBA, the JCBA was a document that underwent at least 3 different sets of negotiations, was ratified by two separate MEC's and was voted on by 2 separate pilot groups.

That this forum allows this kind of stuff to stand unchallenged for 3 pages, yet wonders where's my response... Sometimes you guys need to look in a mirror, imo.

Originally Posted by NuGuy
There were more protections in the Compass thing than survived the merger. There was a narrowbody floor and provisions that Compass could not be sold until there was a 100 seat replacement on the mainline property. Obviously that could have been used for leverage by the joint MCs, but why it wasn't I will leave to your imagination.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
Our narrowbody floor gets set on the 3rd of April. That being said, there are enough loopholes for the company to drive through that the floor is essentially meaningless in my opinion. I don't think either pilot group has scope worth bragging about, especially compared to what we had pre-bankruptcy.
slowplay is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 03:58 AM
  #74676  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Originally Posted by slowplay
I'll be back late tonight when I have more time, but I see nobody from the assembled forum wisdom has challenged this divisive, revisionist tripe.

The ENTIRE fNWA NC was in NYC for over a month working on the pre-merger announcement JCBA. Much of the fNWA committee structure (including Comm, R&I, and CA) was in NYC, eventually to be joined by the entire fNWA MEC. By late February a JCBA had been agreed to by the 3 parties, but there was no SLI, so no deal. Much of that same process was repeated in March, then the entire process was repeated again in June. Section 1 of the DAL PWA was substantially altered by the JCBA to include things like the fNWA Alaska code share, Compass, and the new agreement tightened permitted aircraft limits compared to the previous stand alone DAL and NWA contracts.

If I reversed the names above and said had the fNWA negotiators not given away CPZ we wouldn't have this problem, that the fDAL guys had no hand in crafting the language...how would that read? While the DAL PWA provided the framework for the JOINT CBA, the JCBA was a document that underwent at least 3 different sets of negotiations, was ratified by two separate MEC's and was voted on by 2 separate pilot groups.

That this forum allows this kind of stuff to stand unchallenged for 3 pages, yet wonders where's my response... Sometimes you guys need to look in a mirror, imo.

Slow, what you say is factually correct, it was not part of the deal, period. What guys are wondering, and have wondered on many items in the FNWA JCBA, is why where they not included. Why where they not looked at, or considered? Maybe they were, but I know I my experience when talking to the Reps involved in the process, many have stated that it was about getting the job done, and getting to an agreement. Maybe that is not the case, but it is not the perception out there.

I know at times, the responses that I have gotten from those involved on both sides of the merger, felt that some items "might" have been overlooked, not by design, just because of the circumstances, and the swiftness that the agreement was crafted.

*This is not just about the CPS stuff, but also other items in the contract. It is what it is, and looking in the rear view mirror does nothing, but the whole experience should be a good lesson.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 04:44 AM
  #74677  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Slow, what you say is factually correct, it was not part of the deal, period. What guys are wondering, and have wondered on many items in the FNWA JCBA, is why where they not included. Why where they not looked at, or considered? Maybe they were, but I know I my experience when talking to the Reps involved in the process, many have stated that it was about getting the job done, and getting to an agreement. Maybe that is not the case, but it is not the perception out there.

I know at times, the responses that I have gotten from those involved on both sides of the merger, felt that some items "might" have been overlooked, not by design, just because of the circumstances, and the swiftness that the agreement was crafted.

*This is not just about the CPS stuff, but also other items in the contract. It is what it is, and looking in the rear view mirror does nothing, but the whole experience should be a good lesson.

ACL;

I tend to agree with your assesment that some things got overlooked due to the swift pace and get the deal done.

I do not in any way buy into the superhuman negotiator theory, where all things were looked at, all leverage was applied and strategically we got the best deal...that is the tripe... IMO.

Without any behind the scenes facts to back it up, I do also believe the DAL MEC was complicit in the sale of Compass...actions speak louder than words. Bars post tieing political inertia to the small jet disunity is simply proven out by history.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 06:02 AM
  #74678  
Can't abide NAI
 
Bucking Bar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Default

ACL, et. al.,

Slowplay wants to defend the MEC's actions (someone needs to and I'm glad he's here to communicate with).

The rest of you need to face the fact - Neither the NWA or the Delta MEC wanted Compass flying.
  • NWA set it up without seniority numbers (knowing full well management does not keep employment promises)
  • Bringing the Compass flying on board was not even a consideration by the Delta MEC
  • Together the new joint MEC facilitated the sale of Compass. They did this without study of the economics. It was a political decision on the basis of the belief that Delta pilots do not fly small jets.
  • The "South" side of the Delta MEC voted in acclimation against the "North" on the issue, revealing the first split of our MEC along pre merger lines.
  • Master Chairman Lee Moak did not authorize his administration to study the economics of restoring Compass flying to our joint operation.
It would be reassuring if the MEC would admit its collective mistakes, or at least its motivations. That way we could move forward with a clear understanding of where our Bargaining Agent is on the issue of job protection & growth. Best to know that we have exactly what we've negotiated. Best to claim success (and admit our real goals).

Hypocrisy is dangerous with the DPA turning every nonsensical statement and action from our MEC into a "conflict of interest" conspiracy theory.

As for how this whole thread started, Bill Swelbar went to lunch with Lee Moak and changed his opinion from "unions made errors by facilitating outsourcing" to "Continental pilots need to come to reality that outsourcing is an integral part of a modern airline."(*) When Bill Swelbar writes the same things I've heard with my own ears, I'm pretty sure where his new thinking came from.

P.S. Scambo, thanks for "getting it"

(*) my own paraphrasing

Last edited by Bucking Bar; 08-30-2011 at 06:16 AM.
Bucking Bar is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 06:05 AM
  #74679  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
Default

Question for you Mac guy's. I just inherited a MacBook Pro from my wife that uses Safari. Ecrew works fine but Icrew does not display properly. A " Simple Accelerator" message distorts the display. Any help for an old computer illiterate.
maddogmax is offline  
Old 08-30-2011, 06:10 AM
  #74680  
Gets Weekends Off
 
nwaf16dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Default

Originally Posted by maddogmax
Question for you Mac guy's. I just inherited a MacBook Pro from my wife that uses Safari. Ecrew works fine but Icrew does not display properly. A " Simple Accelerator" message distorts the display. Any help for an old computer illiterate.
You'll need to use another browser. Firefox works fine with icrew. It's a free download.
nwaf16dude is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices