Superpilot92

First off if we had a actual union that would stand up to management and fight for scope instead of negotiate away scope then we wouldnt be in this situation. Emotions arent apart of this. We have a leader that is out fixing managements problems instead of fixing our problems. He was elected to represent the pilot group and work with other elected reps. Instead he decided to go off and ink a deal with mgmt that basically said we see your scope violation and we'll give you more. Now i know you'll say they didnt think they would win in arbitration. Well everyone can see that mgmt fudged their "understanding" of the verbiage. Also a real furlough protection would have been to incorporate every pilot under the old 911 scope provisions. If the company wants to operate 76 seaters out of the parameters than they should have been made to sign a no furlough clause making all 76 seaters instantly become 70 seaters if a DAL pilot gets furloughed. WE have a big issue coming up here at DAL in the next few years that needs attention NOW. These DC9s will eventually need to be replaced and until we have MEC leadership that is willing to stand up and say enough with outsourcing we will end up like midwest or ual at some point. Is it so much to ask that we have a leadership of people that actually represent the pilot group as a whole? At what point will the MEC put its feet down on outsourcing jobs? Their seat maybe?

the real underlying problem is moak went out and did this on his own without any other elected officials. Does he work for management or does he work for the pilot group? The company violated the contract and we are letting them get away with it at no real cost to them and they know it. The sad part is that way to many people have just come to expect this out of this leadership group and have just come to expect it. That is a problem that needs to be fixed.

My main problem is this, ALPA is supposed to work on our behalf, right? Is that to much to ask? If that's a problem than its time for an in house DPA.

sailingfun

First have you called and talked to your reps. If not I suggest you do. Some of what you posted is totally simply not correct. I agree the furlough protection is minimal however the issue was somewhat trivial also. The 19 airframes if we use our numbers more then likely would only have been restricted to 70 seats for about a year. Then they could put the seats back in so the entire discussions comes down the 6 additional seats in 19 already purchased and allowed airframes for around a year.

We could have stood firm and in some respects I would have preferred that for the message it sends. Had we stood firm and gone to arbitration what would be the likely outcome? First your concept that everyone can see that management fudged the numbers is not the view the MEC held. The truth is that both sides felt their understanding was correct and there were reasons to support both positions. The real problem was the language was poorly written in the first place. In these types of cases arbitrators fall back on intent and negotiation notes ect.. There was nothing in that to clearly support either side.
That means in arbitration there were 3 options.
1. We win slam dunk. By the time we win however they may have been back in compliance and not have to remove the seats anyway. If not they would have had to take the seats out for a very limited amount of time. Perhaps months.
2. Split the baby-Arbitrator agrees with our numbers but feels the companies violation was not blatant and allows them to keept he seats in. (Expect outcome by most MEC members)
3. Company wins. Now they get to keep the seats and apply their formula going forward which allows them to have more seats forever based on mainline fleet numbers. Big loss for us.

You have to look at those options and then compare that with what we got. We get to use our numbers going forward without dispute. That reduces the number of 76 seat airframes going forward. We got some very minimal furlough protection we did not have. THis is better then anything we could have hoped for in arbitration. The only varible is the message we may have sent management by saying no and I agree that is a valid point.

One last point. There was no end run. This grievance was handled exactly the way every grievance has always been handled at Delta since I was hired. The grievance committee appointed by the MEC negotiated the settlement not Lee Moak. As the MEC chairman LM is the approving authority on grievance settlements. He approved it. Again exactly the same as every other grievance we have settled the last 50 years.

ohplease!

how many 76 seaters did the NWA agreement allow?

since the lists are combined, will the number allowed by the DL agreement and the NW agreement be combined to allow for a new higher total?

Schwartz

The old NWA CBA allowed 90 RJs 51 to 76 seats as long as there was a bilateral flow.

The old DAL PWA allowed 200 RJs 51+ seats. 30 of them could be configured to between 71-76 seats; the remaining could only be 70 seats.

The joint contract allows 255 RJs 51+ seats. 120 (now 153) can be configured 71-76 seats.

Superpilot92

Yes i have and i pmed you about it. Your thoughts?

ToiletDuck

Just a thought but is there no checks and balances system in place so that no one person can simply go and make such a decision without the consent of those that elected him to that position? You have reps for a reason. This is a pretty big issue why didn't it go to vote?