Originally Posted by
tsquare
What did that language guarantee? What did it protect? I haven't seen any language that guarantees anything.
By your non-response to your initial question of leverage, I take it we've at least cleared that up. Leverage didn't apply to us because it was management asking for something...not us.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
You totally avoided that question in your response. Forget about what supposedly has been done by the MEC, and these boards are nothing but a discussion anyway, we don't affect policy no matter how much you wish otherwise. Educate me on what it is that you believe protected us and could have FORCED management to keep those slots in use..... and more importantly, the follow on that would have then guaranteed that they would have been FORCED to maintain all those slots in NRT. Frankly, I don't think you can do that because the way I understand it, that language does not exist. But I'll listen.
OK, here goes. I didn't say our language guaranteed anything. I said our language
protected us. It protected us by not allowing the company to slowly dismantle NRT flying and replace it with code share. It did this by requiring the company to operate 316 slots per week out of NRT or code share immediately became illegal per our contract. It didn't require management to always operate 316 slots per week no matter what. It tied management's ability to code share to the 316 slot requirement. It was smart because we all know requiring our company to operate X amount of flying even if it is unprofitable is a recipe for disaster. It hurts us as employees as much as it hurts the company. The key was tying code share to the slots. It protected our jobs from slowly being code shared away. Again, not guarantee...protection. Moot point however because that's gone now.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
And one last thing... without "traffic" there are no passengers.. and without them, we have no jobs. We are a DISTANT third in terms of Asian code share partners, and it is a big disadvantage for us. Why can'[t we do that flying organically? I do not know, but apparently we cannot. I think this is the first manifestation of that reason.....
I reject the entire premise of this management-speak about how important code share is. There is no evidence whatsoever that code share has helped Delta pilots one bit. The empirical data I see is Delta pilots losing flying to code share partners while they gain. That's the net/net I see. DALPA's spin notwithstanding, code shares have done nothing but help management. It helps them by spreading risk of having only one pilot group fly their brand. As unionized employees, I always thought we were supposed to be protected from that type of Darwinism by having exclusivity as to who flies our company brand. Southwest pilots have that. We used to have it. I want it back because therein lies our ultimate leverage and our ultimate strength as an employee group. As long as we allow this selling of our jobs for the latest JV, code share, RJ replacement stuff, we'll continue to have less and less strength. And as long as we all continue to parrot the latest managment buzzwords and experiments, we may as well not have a union.
I think we need a new acronym at Delta for our union. UINO (Union In Name Only).
Carl