That's good to hear. But I'm telling you that you need to be ready to vote NO in the face of pressure and fear like you've probably never experienced. You literally need to start preparing yourself and your family right now for the fear. Just the same as you are probably already planning financially.
Carl
Yep. I figure the company will offer something like 20 percent raise up front, higher vacation credit, 100 seaters allowed at the regionals, and a no-furlough clause to assure us we will keep our current jobs. If we vote for it, we might never furlough, but Delta won't hire again for 15 years even with all our retirements coming up. Remember, there's a lot of pilots retiring in the next ten years that could use the money. I would expect them to vote yes to the above proposal. It's a smart business decision on their behalf even if it does screw every pilot in the future. It has been proven over and over again that everyone is out for himself no matter what the consequences.
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Ah, yes... Liquid Larry. DFW Refugee and I deployed with him a couple of times. Now there's a guy that had some big layovers. Good F/E, though.
I was in VQ3 from 82-85; DFW was there from 83-86. A fun squadron, but three years of it (and Hawaii) was plenty for me.
Larry came to the P.I. when I was in -50. Hey was a really good engineer except that if there was a scratch on a tire he would not pronounce it good for flight when leaving Pattaya Beach, but it could be on fire in Atsugi and it was good to go... I heard he retired to Hawa'ii somewhere and bought a red corvette. I'll bet it was a show watching him get in that car...
It will suck more, if pilots choose some flashy pay raise over strong section one changes. If we do, do that, we have no one to blame but ourselves when the JV's, CPA's and code shares keep a coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boog123
If that is brought to this pilot group to vote on, then I expect a resignation of the committee and members that approved it in the first place. PERIOD!
Well.... you guys better pray that the majority of pilots answered their surveys along this line of thinking. In the case of Boog's post, if we find out that the group as a whole wanted those flashy pay rates more than the scope, then the NC will have delivered what the masses wanted. It's a bit premature to hang them until you know all the facts, but if we told them to get scope and they brought money, then I wholeheartedly agree with you... but I will say this: scope is not an absolute. It is negotiable just like anything else.
Yep. I figure the company will offer something like 20 percent raise up front, higher vacation credit, 100 seaters allowed at the regionals, and a no-furlough clause to assure us we will keep our current jobs. If we vote for it, we might never furlough, but Delta won't hire again for 15 years even with all our retirements coming up. Remember, there's a lot of pilots retiring in the next ten years that could use the money. I would expect them to vote yes to the above proposal. It's a smart business decision on their behalf even if it does screw every pilot in the future. It has been proven over and over again that everyone is out for himself no matter what the consequences.
All this speculation.. based on what? But what do you care, wouldn't that just make your decision to leave for SWA all that much easier?
Absolutely incorrect. If we don't agree with our regional competitors on what is in OUR scope opener, the ALPA president becomes directly involved. All of it completely hidden from us. All of it. That's what the language says.
That is pure speculation on your part. This will be the first full-scale test of it that I'm aware of in a Section 6. And we'll not be privy to what was said in any meetings, or what Moak's actions were.
Absolutely incorrect. The ALPA president MUST insert himself in the process if our regional competitors don't agree with what we want to put into OUR scope opener. And we will never know what Moak's influence was. It's all secret.
Carl
Show the wording and an instance of its use. You are incorrect in your "assessment" of Ford/Cooksey.
Or is that "all secret" too.
Seriously Carl, EVERYONE here wants much tighter scope, and is willing to go to the mat for it. We just HAVE to make sure that the effort is pointed at the REAL problem, not some "smoking man" shadow that is controlling the world in secret meetings.
The REALITY is that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, has the ability to negotiate Scope and "permitted flying" except the pilots of Delta Air Lines.
You have still yet to convince me how ALPA has benefitted from more RJ flying at Delta.
Mainline DAL = little increase in "smaller" mainline equipment
Comair ALPA = Shrinking to oblivion
ASA ALPA = Talking Furloughs and losing some CR7/9s
PNCL/MES ALPA = lost all SAAB flying
SkyWest NON UNION = Continual incremental growth
RAH Teamsters = Massive gains in DCI flying over the past Decade
GoJet Scab/Teamsters = new deal for 12 of ASA's CR7/9's
So tell me again how ALPA has been helped by poor mainline scope?
How have DCI ALPA pilots benefitted from this "secret language"?
In my opinion:
1. NWA went on strike and still didn't lock down scope.
2. DAL came within 48 hours of a strike to get C2K and didn't lock down scope.
(Why? Because pay trumped protecting the flying, and guys who were voting didn't place a premium on scope. FINALLY guys see the light, and I pity the NC/MEC who doesn't recognize it.)
3. ALPA will benefit by MORE mainline, NOT by continuing to allow lots of "permitted flying" to continue.
Yep. I figure the company will offer something like 20 percent raise up front, higher vacation credit, 100 seaters allowed at the regionals, and a no-furlough clause to assure us we will keep our current jobs. If we vote for it, we might never furlough, but Delta won't hire again for 15 years even with all our retirements coming up. Remember, there's a lot of pilots retiring in the next ten years that could use the money. I would expect them to vote yes to the above proposal. It's a smart business decision on their behalf even if it does screw every pilot in the future. It has been proven over and over again that everyone is out for himself no matter what the consequences.
The company knows that this wouldn't stand a "snowball's chance in ATL"! It'd be "representational suicide" to even put it to MEMRAT.
While you are correct, there are many retiring in the next ten years. I personally believe, that even the most senior guys on the list understand the effects of a 100-seat airplane at a "contract carrier". (For the same reason the most "junior guys" on the list don't vote for an non-palatable JV with AF/KLM/VA, etc.)
GJ
P.S. Carl calling me naive in.............3..........................2....... .......................1.
You know what really irks me?...When you try to pretend now that you weren't one of the surprised. You've done nothing but post the DALPA/management cheerleading on this slot swap. I don't remember a single post in which you warned us that 90% of the flying would go to the regionals. I'll bet you even did the call to action in support of the slot swap. I did not...for just this reason.
Carl
You are correct, I too was under the assumption that it would be better split. It is not, and I was surprised. What I am not, is wondering how they could do that. As I said it is totally legal within the contract, and that Carl, is where the change needs to come.
In 2009, it would have been a great deal for us. Most of the cities over 750 nn were to be flown by mainline. With the economy in the crapper, I can see why the company is hitting a bunt. They want to fill the slots, but do not want to slash ticket prices to fill a MD-88 or 320 up. I may not like it, but I sure understand the economics of it.
My brother just paid 600 dollars a piece for a direct flight home for Christmas out of LGA. That would not have been possible to demand if they were still trying to fill 100 seats.
The change needs to come to Section 1. The cheer leading that ALPA wanted us to do is logical. The returns again are not proportional because our section 1 does not demand it. The reason it doesn't is because to many of our compatriots do not put Scope as a number 1 priority. Until they do we will see the same things.
Find a way to get this group to mach in unison to recapturing that flying, and you may get it, but when guys secretly and not so secretly state they will vote for X% pay raise over recapture, the issue still resides within our ranks.
ALPA or another union is of no consequence, if they are doing what the pilots want, then the results will be the same.
You know what really irks me?...When you try to pretend now that you weren't one of the surprised. You've done nothing but post the DALPA/management cheerleading on this slot swap. I don't remember a single post in which you warned us that 90% of the flying would go to the regionals. I'll bet you even did the call to action in support of the slot swap. I did not...for just this reason.
Carl
Oh great wise and all knowing, where were your posts foretelling of the great LGA RJ infestation???????
That's good to hear. But I'm telling you that you need to be ready to vote NO in the face of pressure and fear like you've probably never experienced. You literally need to start preparing yourself and your family right now for the fear. Just the same as you are probably already planning financially.
Carl
Carl;
This is my third section 6, fwiw. The first one was when I was just in the airlines, and I voted the TA down. Why? It sucked.
My family is more than prepared. If you recall in 2008, I wanted ALPA to bring in Dave Ramsey so that we could offer free clinics to our pilots. I still would like that. I have no worry about pressure from anyone. I know how I will vote, and what my mins are. Selling scope, or no sunsetting of these agreements, along with language that states DAL has to get our approval for every JV, CPA, or CS along with a term limit on the agreement that goes outside of the amendable date of a PWA are mins for me.
Absolutely incorrect. If we don't agree with our regional competitors on what is in OUR scope opener, the ALPA president becomes directly involved. All of it completely hidden from us. All of it. That's what the language says.
That is pure speculation on your part. This will be the first full-scale test of it that I'm aware of in a Section 6. And we'll not be privy to what was said in any meetings, or what Moak's actions were.
Absolutely incorrect. The ALPA president MUST insert himself in the process if our regional competitors don't agree with what we want to put into OUR scope opener. And we will never know what Moak's influence was. It's all secret.
Carl
I could care less what Lee wants. There have been disagreements with Dan Ford; who is no longer a ALPA member by the way, and us. He pitched a fit and we did what we wanted to do. We will continue to do so. Like I said, the issue is that most of our guys see pay as more important than fixing the shortcoming in section 1. You need to change that, and once you do the politicians will fall in line.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
