Originally Posted by
nwaf16dude
That's a really pessimistic stretch you're making there... How could locking the current ratio possibly be seen as "improving the balance of flying between Delta and DCI"? Yes, I hope you are wrong as well.
I was underwhelmed by the first read through, but they are addressing most of my concerns with "improve" statements, so I'll wait for the TA to make my judgement.
I was pleased to see the attempt to redefine flight time based on the door being closed.
What can I say, I'm most happy when I'm being pessimistic :-)
With the reductions that are currently going on in the 50 seat market at Delta all ALPA has to do is codify these reductions that the company is already making and plans to continue to make and they could call that a "WIN" and say they have "improved the balance of flying."
In reality they would have done nothing since Delta was already doing it. If there is no reduction in large permitted aircraft (the once that have limits and whose CASM threatens Mainline) then ALPA will have achieved nothing.
I, like you, have read over the opener several times and I'm not that disappointed in it with few exceptions, but Section one written in such a way that it sounds like we don't really want to "rock the boat."
Here is compensation: Significantly increase hourly rates of pay
Here is what scope should have been:
Significantly reduce the outsourcing of Delta Pilots jobs.
Seek to the maximum extent possible to have Delta Pilot fly Delta's planes and passengers.
I would have like to see Night Pay in there as well as Hazard Pay for some of our layover cities.
vpr