Martin404

Man I'm hoping Bryce Harper's at the plate!

Mesabah

There are three options: 1. They can be shut down, 2. Management has to remove that 1 seat, 3. A full or partial SLI between the two carriers. The NMB will always choose option 3. You can now see why it is in ALPA's best financial interest to not grieve that situation at all, and allow the scope violation to continue. However, it is in management's best interest to not do this, as the toxic atmosphere it would create would eat into profits.

gloopy

You make it sound like adding a seat to DCI would automatically lead to one list. I disagree with that. I also don't think management's desire for goodwill is what's preventing scope violations. They'd do it if they thought they could, pilot good will be darned.

It would be grieved and expidited with an easy victory and no DCI pilot would end up on the mainline list. Pretty cut and dry.

johnso29

Congrats. And welcome!!!

Mesabah

Yes, but it is management's choice. They are obviously not going to pay mainline pilot rates for 1 extra seat. It is no union victory.

A blank section one is the strongest scope contract you could ever achieve.

hockeypilot44

Congratulations!!! Your experience is impressive.

fisherpilot

Does anyone know what the average number of internal recs are for the folks getting the calls?

gloopy

Maybe a powerful one line section one. Not blank though. But I get what you mean. Even then there would have to be tons of language addressing JV's, etc. Unless of course you believe a master scope clause would result in DL ordering hundreds and hundreds of growth widebodies to open massive expat hubs in CDG, AMS, ICN, SVO, NRT, etc. with massive capacity dumping overflights to every single city pair around the whole wide world. That is just not realistic at all, and I'm pretty bullish on our needs for improved JV language.

Back to the domestic, we can certainlly start with more restrictions on the AS code share abuse (partially being taken care of by market realities anyway) and reducing and eventually eliminating 76 seaters that are allowed to be outsourced.

Bucking Bar

How do you accomplish that when Pinnacle was authorized to negotiate directly with Delta management? Pinnacle ostensibly used their scope to capture airplanes which would have been flown by other ALPA members and succeeded in modifying the Delta preferential hiring provisions to favor them. It would not surprise me to see Endeavor negotiate rates on aircraft currently flown by Delta pilots.

My point is, the Camel is in the tent and the Delta pilots were locked out of the tent. Mesabah is mostly correct on the law and like me, he learned this from counsel outside of ALPA's own echo chamber.

My solution is not only fair, it is probably the only way forward if you actually want to accomplish what you say you do.

The compromise I see is 82 seats, flown by Delta pilots, our alter ego brothers recognized for what they are and we being a couple thousand more numbers senior to where we currently are.

For those reading this thread for hiring news, ... that would increase Delta hiring significantly.

Bucking Bar

FWIW, that's what the contract says.

But, we agree it is unlikely that seat (or 6 seats) will be added without a deal in hand first. IMHO any express carrier would be pretty happy to sign on for current book in exchange for a Delta number at the bottom. We would need to maintain the overall fleet numbers to avoid transfer via refleeting from the 717/MD88 and any other higher CASM jets.