Originally Posted by caddis

According to a rep I spoke to this is not correct. You are full at ALV but scheduling can call and ask you to take a trip that puts you at ALV plus 15. You can say no.

This was put into the contract to allow reserves to fly over ALV if they wanted to without putting in yellow slips. According to the rep one thing pilots asked for was the ability to fly more.

Originally Posted by Going2Baja

The part I'm missing is where do we get & what kind of tablet are we supposed to use? Is the Co saying that if we buy our own and want to use them that we can, or are they going to provide us tablets?

Baja.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

Well, Johnso had a better chance of being a line holder again had he stayed on the 320. My point is for most people it is a choice. You must not be that senior, or you might not want to commute.(NYC MD88 might work for you) That is a choice too. Eventually people will retire and people will move up to line holder or stay reserve for some reason.

Instead of everyone getting upset, understand that I was just pointing out that some of the loudest people on this board are reserves, and they have their wants and needs. I accept that. I also want people to know that there is a life beyond reserve, a better life if you want it. It will be your choice to decide if you want to go after the larger plane, or commute for a better schedule. Don't look at everything as a reserve only, because someday you may not be one. That's my point.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Your own ,but as I understand it this is step one. Step two is a company provided tablet.

Originally Posted by gloopy

IOW, more 76 seaters at DCI. Probably lots more, like 50-100 or even more. OK, while that's an automatic no vote from me and I don't buy into any of the sky is falling alternatives, let's run with that assumption that we *need* these additional 76 seaters and we need them at DCI. Again, I strongly disagree, but let's assume it is the case (cause it WILL be in the TA no matter what.)

At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.

But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.

Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.

The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.

If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Where is this memo located?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I sign up for all of the pilot new briefs and this one was an internal memo sent by the VP of Flying Operations.

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer

Four things you should know:

1. Reserve is always a choice.
2. Reserve is just getting good now. Wait until you get to fly almost 100 hours a month on reserve. The upside, you will be forced to retire early because your health will decline more quickly. Kiss seeing your family goodbye as well.
3. The changes that are being negotiated for are part of a big victory taking place because we have leverage and its imperative we get the new contract done quickly or we will lose out on a huge opportunity forever. The next offer will "not be as good" so best take this one.
4. Getting more work out of the worker bees is one way the company is going to make 3 billion net per year. Health and quality of life of pilots will take a back seat to that.

Just vote no.

Originally Posted by johnso29

I'm not sure why you're singling me out. I complain very little about my life on 7er reserve. And being a lineholder on the M88 in NYC really doesn't equate to a good QOL. Do you really want to go down the 'commuting is a choice' road? After all the aircraft shifts, base closures, and capacity reductions? Many people can't even settle down anywhere because the company won't stop shifting things. Bottom line, commuting isn't always a choice, and in some cases reserve provides a better schedule and QOL. It's different for everyone, and everyone should be able to exercise their seniority however they desire.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

I get those in my email as well... it hasn't showed up yet nor is on DLnet. Can you PM me the text?