Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-15-2012, 01:30 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,989
Scope Issues
Guys,
This issue is a lot more complicated than a simple "No" vote. I am pretty much a Scope hawk and have submitted a DPA card, but:
Our present Scope sucks and needs to be improved. I believe that there is presently no limit on turbro-props at any seat level as just one glaring weakness and there are others.
I think we as Pilots should only give up two things to bring the 717s onboard - Jack and Squat! If it is in the companies best interest to get them they will - end of story.
On the other hand we have to ask ourselves can we allow additional 76 seaters, say converting some to 70 to 76 seaters and still improve our scope language at the same time?
I think we can - my problem is that I do not trust our company and our union not to simply renegotiate Scope again in the future after they grow to the next Scope limit, or actually "pause" since no Scope limit has actually been more than a "pause" in growth vice an actual long term limit.
Our track record in this regard as a Union is not good. Maybe DALPA has indeed learned from past mistakes - but how do we know? How can we be guaranteed an "Ironclad" future Scope clause? And we have all seen what "force-majeur" can do in times of financial stress.
Bottom line - My personal feeling is that we could improve our Scope greatly while allowing more 76 seaters - think about , reductions in the Alaska code-share, reductions/limits in JVs, big reductions in the total number of DCI seats/percentages that we allow. All of this would be great if it wouldn't just be bargained away again in the future like other previous Scope agreements - as soon as they become limiting.
This is our conundrum and I don't know what the answer is - but I am open for suggestions.
Scoop
This issue is a lot more complicated than a simple "No" vote. I am pretty much a Scope hawk and have submitted a DPA card, but:
Our present Scope sucks and needs to be improved. I believe that there is presently no limit on turbro-props at any seat level as just one glaring weakness and there are others.
I think we as Pilots should only give up two things to bring the 717s onboard - Jack and Squat! If it is in the companies best interest to get them they will - end of story.
On the other hand we have to ask ourselves can we allow additional 76 seaters, say converting some to 70 to 76 seaters and still improve our scope language at the same time?
I think we can - my problem is that I do not trust our company and our union not to simply renegotiate Scope again in the future after they grow to the next Scope limit, or actually "pause" since no Scope limit has actually been more than a "pause" in growth vice an actual long term limit.
Our track record in this regard as a Union is not good. Maybe DALPA has indeed learned from past mistakes - but how do we know? How can we be guaranteed an "Ironclad" future Scope clause? And we have all seen what "force-majeur" can do in times of financial stress.
Bottom line - My personal feeling is that we could improve our Scope greatly while allowing more 76 seaters - think about , reductions in the Alaska code-share, reductions/limits in JVs, big reductions in the total number of DCI seats/percentages that we allow. All of this would be great if it wouldn't just be bargained away again in the future like other previous Scope agreements - as soon as they become limiting.
This is our conundrum and I don't know what the answer is - but I am open for suggestions.
Scoop
04-15-2012, 02:10 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Guys,
This issue is a lot more complicated than a simple "No" vote. I am pretty much a Scope hawk and have submitted a DPA card, but:
Our present Scope sucks and needs to be improved. I believe that there is presently no limit on turbro-props at any seat level as just one glaring weakness and there are others.[B]
Scoop
This issue is a lot more complicated than a simple "No" vote. I am pretty much a Scope hawk and have submitted a DPA card, but:
Our present Scope sucks and needs to be improved. I believe that there is presently no limit on turbro-props at any seat level as just one glaring weakness and there are others.[B]
Scoop
40. “Permitted aircraft type” means: a. a propeller-driven aircraft configured with 70 or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 70,000 or fewer pounds
I do think that needs to be tightened though.
04-15-2012, 02:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
What no one has directly said yet, I will. If the company wants 717s and 36 shiny new 76 seat aircraft, I will be the first to pin on my Delta wings and fly either while collecting a Delta pay check.
Don't even take a negotiating strategy. You'll only invite the opportunity to be coerced. Simply fly the airplanes yourselves. Or accept that nothing will change if you don't. Doesn't seem so awful, now does it?
Don't even take a negotiating strategy. You'll only invite the opportunity to be coerced. Simply fly the airplanes yourselves. Or accept that nothing will change if you don't. Doesn't seem so awful, now does it?
04-15-2012, 02:21 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I will not discredit per se, but I will reply that what you state is standard tactic. Lets wait and see what these reps do, IF a crappy TA shows up.
The admin may want a unanimous vote, but I am willing to be that more than a few reps will vote "no" if it fails to meet what this group as a whole wants.
How do I know? I asked the majority of them. The makeup of this group is a lot different than it was a few years ago. If anyone tries to shove a ****poor TA down on them, they will react. Before we get there, I would also state that the makeup of the NC is mid to junior level FO's. DO NOT discredit them either.
* I will give you that this is my first fill section 6 here at DAL, but is my third one in my career. The first one I was apart of the group turned down. I foresee the same thing here if it fails to meet expectations.
The admin may want a unanimous vote, but I am willing to be that more than a few reps will vote "no" if it fails to meet what this group as a whole wants.
How do I know? I asked the majority of them. The makeup of this group is a lot different than it was a few years ago. If anyone tries to shove a ****poor TA down on them, they will react. Before we get there, I would also state that the makeup of the NC is mid to junior level FO's. DO NOT discredit them either.
* I will give you that this is my first fill section 6 here at DAL, but is my third one in my career. The first one I was apart of the group turned down. I foresee the same thing here if it fails to meet expectations.
BINGO! Further scope relaxation further stagnates them in the right seat.
04-15-2012, 02:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
My reps wrote me right back and told me that not only is scope not for sale, they want to recapture it.
04-15-2012, 02:58 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Like I said, I would expect something by mid to late June to hit targets I see with AMR.
Going to go back to enjoying my short break from this website.
04-15-2012, 03:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
I don't know why so many people are willing to sell the Negotiating Committee short. I guess I'm naive and I believe they feel (especially with two F/O reps) similar to what we do. Remember (maybe this hasn't been emphasized enough) the company agreed to early openers because they want something (contract stability for a merger?) and that gives us leverage. More than once it has been stated that EITHER side can walk away and revert back to Normal Section 6. I believe that is what the NC will do rather than actually bring back a poor TA. While I can't put a number on (how much better is scope, how much are benefits improved, etc.) BUT a new contract signed and in force on Jan 1, 2013 has a good amount of value over "Something Better" 18-24 months down the road. If we can make good inroads on a 4 year contract we will almost be back in Section 6 rather than going for it all and ending up like APA and AA right now.
04-15-2012, 03:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Saudi MD90 enroute to Bangor...
FWIW N218AS is owned by Airsale...
Cheers
George
FWIW N218AS is owned by Airsale...
Cheers
George
04-15-2012, 03:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 841
Word is the BOD will take up the refinery issue on the 19th.
04-15-2012, 03:29 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
