GED = Good Enough for Delta
01-15-2013, 06:04 PM
#111
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I hear ya. But my point is, if it was important to us, we should have negotiated it. Just because Delta didn't do something previously, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it in the future....unless we negotiate to the contrary.
This is the same thing with respect to RJ flying. When I got hired (a LONG LONG time ago),
This is the same thing with respect to RJ flying. When I got hired (a LONG LONG time ago),
If my computer wasn't about to go to turn off on its own, I'd change some wording there for fun.
I guess that's the thing, trying not to let another cat out of the bag. The problem is understanding which cat is the next CRJ-200? Or what benign looking loophole needs to be closed up asap before they run a train through it and refuse to ever negotiate it back to its original intent. Or our original intent.
01-15-2013, 06:19 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,995
01-15-2013, 06:20 PM
#113
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Does this end fighting serve any purpose but to divide the profession as a whole? Does fighting each other serve someone else's purposes better than our own?
Degree no degree it's not a PWA violation. Want it changed, use negotiation capital, if not don't. If Delta changes it for some they may need to reevaluate it for all. Their deal. To date I have not seen anything about this so called vault agreement. Until then, its rumor.
Degree no degree it's not a PWA violation. Want it changed, use negotiation capital, if not don't. If Delta changes it for some they may need to reevaluate it for all. Their deal. To date I have not seen anything about this so called vault agreement. Until then, its rumor.
01-15-2013, 06:23 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,995
Perhaps you can vie for the position with a daring contest of Odds and Evens.
Time for another VSOP.
01-15-2013, 06:45 PM
#115
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
The issue is that they are getting around the first line of defense: the minimum qualifications. Hopefully the interview will do its job.
01-15-2013, 07:02 PM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Does this end fighting serve any purpose but to divide the profession as a whole? Does fighting each other serve someone else's purposes better than our own?
Degree no degree it's not a PWA violation. Want it changed, use negotiation capital, if not don't. If Delta changes it for some they may need to reevaluate it for all. Their deal. To date I have not seen anything about this so called vault agreement. Until then, its rumor.
Degree no degree it's not a PWA violation. Want it changed, use negotiation capital, if not don't. If Delta changes it for some they may need to reevaluate it for all. Their deal. To date I have not seen anything about this so called vault agreement. Until then, its rumor.
1) Who exactly is the Airline Pilot Association that is referred to in Section 1(A) of our contract? I always assumed it was the Delta MEC. I think most pilots assume this. Can this association negotiate with Delta without any involvement by the DAL MEC? I think most guys assume it cannot.
2) Is the "meet-and-confer" requirement binding only on the mainline side? If our MEC was not involved, does it not invalidate that requirement? You cannot have it both ways: either we all meet-and-confer, or we do not.
3) (Or) Is this the issue here the relationship between the administration and MEC? Could we have been involved, but only at the administration level?
This may not amount to much, in the end. Maybe this is a matter of TO working something out with LM and E9 that meets the letter of the meet-and-confer requirement. I agree that we can't really force Delta to effect changes in hiring requirements, nor do we want to. I have an opinion about that issue, but I don't think we can effect a change. No, the only real questions relate to who was talking to who, and whether we were properly represented. So far, Bar's questions haven't been clearly answered.
I know that many of the conspiracies on APC have proven to be mere theories, but a group that doesn't ask questions is not going to get answers they like, in the end. If I'm missing something important in your message, please feel free to PM me. For now, I'm just reading through this, to see if we can get a simple (but complete and coherent) answer to Bar's questions.
01-15-2013, 07:04 PM
#118
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I don't know, ACL. I don't always agree with Bar on the subject of DCI carriers, but some of his points aren't resolved in this debate, and I guess the bridge agreement is not a rumor:
1) Who exactly is the Airline Pilot Association that is referred to in Section 1(A) of our contract? I always assumed it was the Delta MEC. I think most pilots assume this. Can this association negotiate with Delta without any involvement by the DAL MEC? I think most guys assume it cannot.
2) Is the "meet-and-confer" requirement binding only on the mainline side? If our MEC was not involved, does it not invalidate that requirement? You cannot have it both ways: either we all meet-and-confer, or we do not.
3) (Or) Is this the issue here the relationship between the administration and MEC? Could we have been involved, but only at the administration level?
This may not amount to much, in the end. Maybe this is a matter of TO working something out with LM and E9 that meets the letter of the meet-and-confer requirement. I agree that we can't really force Delta to effect changes in hiring requirements, nor do we want to. I have an opinion about that issue, but I don't think we can effect a change. No, the only real questions relate to who was talking to who, and whether we were properly represented. So far, Bar's questions haven't been clearly answered.
I know that many of the conspiracies on APC have proven to be mere theories, but a group that doesn't ask questions is not going to get answers they like, in the end. If I'm missing something important in your message, please feel free to PM me. For now, I'm just reading through this, to see if we can get a simple (but complete and coherent) answer to Bar's questions.
1) Who exactly is the Airline Pilot Association that is referred to in Section 1(A) of our contract? I always assumed it was the Delta MEC. I think most pilots assume this. Can this association negotiate with Delta without any involvement by the DAL MEC? I think most guys assume it cannot.
2) Is the "meet-and-confer" requirement binding only on the mainline side? If our MEC was not involved, does it not invalidate that requirement? You cannot have it both ways: either we all meet-and-confer, or we do not.
3) (Or) Is this the issue here the relationship between the administration and MEC? Could we have been involved, but only at the administration level?
This may not amount to much, in the end. Maybe this is a matter of TO working something out with LM and E9 that meets the letter of the meet-and-confer requirement. I agree that we can't really force Delta to effect changes in hiring requirements, nor do we want to. I have an opinion about that issue, but I don't think we can effect a change. No, the only real questions relate to who was talking to who, and whether we were properly represented. So far, Bar's questions haven't been clearly answered.
I know that many of the conspiracies on APC have proven to be mere theories, but a group that doesn't ask questions is not going to get answers they like, in the end. If I'm missing something important in your message, please feel free to PM me. For now, I'm just reading through this, to see if we can get a simple (but complete and coherent) answer to Bar's questions.
On exclusivity that is ALPA's under the power of the RLA and local autonomy is afforded to the local council (MEC) via the ALPA CBL in the sections above.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 01-15-2013 at 07:20 PM.
01-15-2013, 07:08 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
The last thing I am is the spelling police because my posts aren't perfect and contain mistakes. I was only ribbing you because you choose to promote the importance of education in a post that contained about 10 errors. Lighten up man and learn to take a little ribbing. Sorry I touched a nerve. Feel free to point out mistakes in my posts and I will take about 1 second to get over it without getting my boxers all in a wad. 
01-15-2013, 07:10 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Body at sea level; heart at 70,000+
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by bucking bar 
. . . It is going to be interesting to see the air force academy captains dealing with some of their new hire fo's who decided against pursuing an education beyond high school and who have absolutely no idea of how the air force runs a flight deck. . . .
I spent a number of years as a C-141 aircraft commander, without a college degree (commissioning and wings through the Aviation Cadet Program). Many times I flew with Copilot Academy Graduates. I doubt they ever knew what college I didn't go to. Hopefully standardization makes sure all flight decks are run the same.
. . . It is going to be interesting to see the air force academy captains dealing with some of their new hire fo's who decided against pursuing an education beyond high school and who have absolutely no idea of how the air force runs a flight deck. . . .
I spent a number of years as a C-141 aircraft commander, without a college degree (commissioning and wings through the Aviation Cadet Program). Many times I flew with Copilot Academy Graduates. I doubt they ever knew what college I didn't go to. Hopefully standardization makes sure all flight decks are run the same.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
