Originally Posted by
sailingfun
The pay rates in the 01 contract were virtually fixed in stone before negotiations even started. The 3B6 rates on the 73N and 777 locked up what the final rates were going to end up being. Scope was the last issue settled in that contract and in the Chapter 11. Both long after pay. You keep repeating scope was sold. That does not make it true. Scope was certainly a massive concession but the continued statement that it was sold for pay does not match the facts.
Sailing,
- My post dealt with the bankruptcy and concessionary negotiations, which I address as follows:
When ALPA, the Judge and Company Attorney used the word "credits" to describe the quid pro quo for scope concessions, what did they mean and where did these "credits" go? Alpha and I had it out on this and he finally gave in stating "I forgot they used the word "credits" " during the BK hearings.
The hearing records indicate those credits were used to offset demands for concessions in other parts of the contract.
Further, our contract is an amalgamation of the NWA PWA and they were clear that their scope concessions which gave birth to Compass were used elsewhere to balance concessions. So even if you were somehow able to prove Delta's hands were clean, you've still got to consider NWA's actions, which they promoted in writing (Zipline 10-18-04).
No union yet has pushed to test on whether a Judge will set aside non pecuniary job protection provisions in a bankruptcy. American may be a precedent setting case (and I looks as though I may lose the argument) but until then it is factually correct to maintain that labor protective provisions have been held sacrosanct unless negotiated away by the Bargaining Agent.
Giambusso and Pinho led ALPA against unification of Delta, when Delta acquired all the formerly independent code of Atlantic Southeast Airlines. ASA was an acquired airline and arguably henceforth a single transportation system after its code was acquired.
Never heard Pinho's thoughts, but Giambusso clearly made his decision on the basis of preserving the quality of Delta's pilots and a career path for his friends in the military. Those are noble thoughts, but they are not the thoughts of union leadership.
The results of the decision against unity are self evident. Even if "management was against it" from a union perspective, the fight for unity should have been made.
... if we did not trade scope for pay, What did we trade it for? Please don't tell me we got "nothing." Admitting incompetence is worse than admitting malfeasance in this instance. I'd at least like to think my job is worth something to my Bargaining Agent (I mean more than $2,100 a year in dues).
I know you hate my term "scope sale" but the record supports its usage and it has resonated with our pilots to the point that it is now part of the popular lexicon and serves its intended purpose - to pressure our MEC to stop trading in scope.
Further the term helps direct our pilots' focus in the correct direction. The DPA wrongly blames ALPA National for our scope losses and if they are successful in the promotion of this error, ALPA's gone (at least from here).
At the end of the day, I want to improve the excellent union and administration we have here.