View Single Post
Old 04-06-2012 | 04:53 PM
  #94962  
slowplay
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy
They could say "we demand as one of our highest priorities a significant reduction in the Alaska code share abuse and significantly fewer outsourced aircraft at DCI."

That is vague and conceptual and leaves a lot of room at the bargaining table. It merely points to the direction we intend on going. Just like for pay. We didn't say exactly what percentage we were after, but we did say we wanted significant increases in pay. Ditto for many other sections. But when it comes to scope we deviate from that and invent murky constructs like "production balances" which could mean worse scope and more large RJ's depending on how its defined at the moment.
There are two statements in the opener that directly address your concerns. The first is "improve protections for domestic and international code share" and the second "improve the balance of flying between Delta and DCI." From the opener:

Section 1:
Scope provisions of the PWA provide the framework for Delta pilot careers. These provisions provide critical job security protections and enhance career progression. To strengthen that framework, the Delta pilots propose the following improvements:


  • Establish appropriate production balance protections in all future JVs
  • Improve protections for domestic and international codeshare
    • Improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI
    • Change the definition of “permitted aircraft type” to include propeller and geared turbo-fan aircraft
    • Add new language to restrict the use of permitted and non-permitted aircraft within holding companies
You can read the rest in the opener, but what you assert above ("when it comes to scope we deviate from that") isn't correct.