Originally Posted by slowplay
Does it represent an opportunity for the Scope Chickens to
1. Yell the sky is falling with no evidence?
2. Tilt at another windmill where there is no proof that a windmill stands?
3. Insert your favorite metaphor here...
Yup, DALPA isn't as shrewd as the average airlinepilotcentral.com forum poster...they were bamboozled by something that the books say didn't happen and that those that yell the loudest can't prove.
Give me some proof and I'll act on it.
You say that YOU
will act on this if brought proof. That is an interesting statement. Just WHO are YOU? Do you speak as the collective conscience of our MEC? If so, communications involves more than speaking, it involves listening. Those on this board are your best friends, they are active and they care about the good of the pilot group, just as you do. These motivated individuals can be a great asset in contract negotiations, or gadfly detractors.
Do we not agree that scope is the most important part of any contract, that without scope the company does not have to be in compliance with any other section? After all, they can set up an alter ego and run it however they want without scope.
If scope is important, why is it written in such a way that it is difficult to properly administer? ALL E-175's are Certified to weights higher than allowed by our scope, but, the operator can restrict the airplane to a more conservative limitation and Embraer will issue a Certificate per the customer's request. This is not an OBJECTIVE scope limit, it is a an easily manipulated paperwork shuffle that requires inspection of an aircraft's maintenance records to determine compliance and which can be changed with a pen in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
Delta's MEC should know this, since our own airplanes are operated at weights less than they are "Certified" for.
The fact that line pilots have to ferret out scope violations suggests that at the very least many pilots do not have confidence that the MEC is effectively doing its job in this area. Right or wrong, this perception exists. I think our history gives them legitimate reasons for concern.
Every scope renegotiation is a FAILURE. The 2001 scope did not last 90 days before massive furloughs were announced. Then we saw repeated FAILURES in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009 as scope was again relaxed and more Delta jobs outsourced. To this day management can both furlough and hire from within the Delta "family" and has at least nine alter ego airlines performing domestic and international "Delta" flying. While we scope "chickens," as you call us, have sounded the alarm the flying performed by Delta pilots has decreased from 90% to around 50% of system block.
Now we are faced with a pilot surplus and the unanswered question of a DC9 replacement. If YOU speak for our MEC, PLEASE THEN LISTEN
FOR OUR MEC and take them the message that your repeated failures to ensure Delta pilots are performing Delta flying has your junior pilots concerned.
Rather than throwing around third grade taunts like "Chicken," my request to you is more reasoned. We want a statement from our MEC Chairman to restore our confidence. I want to hear that they sent someone to inspect Republic's maintenance records, that they did the right thing to proactively protect the Delta pilots they serve.
When I ask about waivers sent from Captain O'Malley to the Comair and ASA pilots releasing them from our Contract's scope (specifically LOA 2006-10) we expect the truth, not a denial of any knowledge of those negotiations. It gives me no satisfaction that the "proof" is in my inbox, it just leaves me a little sick to my stomach and worried about my future here at Delta Air Lines.
Of course such a release leads me to question Exception two: "In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85." Well? We waived one of the triggers already.
Call me a "Chicken." I think we have legitimate reasons to be concerned that our scope will effectively protect jobs in the coming downturn and realignment. In fact, it appears to me someone knew what they were doing when they set many protections to expire in December of 2010.
Frankly, calling me, or anyone else a "Chicken" is the worst case scenario. We are your First Officers telling you we saw something that makes us uncomfortable. When your FO tells you he has a concern about airworthiness do you respond, "what, you a Chicken, bwak bwak?" Of course you don't. I humbly suggest the same CRM used on the line works online too.