Originally Posted by
vprMatrix
ACL,
I read " Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI" as a way of saying we want to lock the (current?) ASM ratio between Delta and DCI. This might work if Alpa is seeking a large cut in current DCI flying but my guess is they won't. Worse, I bet that alpa will put in a one way valve were DCI can grow but doesn't have to shrink when mainline does.
Hope I'm wrong but there were enough specifics in other sections that section 1 has left me underwhelmed . Also, I can't tell your tone but why is a sunset clause a fantasy? Even if we just half the 255 large RJs, sunsetting seems like a good way of taking the sting out of RJ reductions.
Vpr
The concept of ratios and balances with DCI was tried, and
failed, in Contract 2000. So was this "holding company" language. When Delta management needed every ounce of performance from the DCI network to try to save the Company the passengers (and the pilots) allowed those provisions of Contract 2000 to be jettisoned almost immediately to save the ship. When our job protection provisions fail, we should not simply wait until the next Section 6 and renegotiate them back in again.
Our Section 1 proposal, along with numerous anecdotal accounts, tells me ALPA (specifically the Delta MEC) intends to remain in this outsourcing partnership with management.