Originally Posted by
crewdawg
The real question is who wants this more? Who pushed to have it negotiated outside of section 6? If the company wants it that bad, hold it hostage for a TA on our contract.
It is likely a trial balloon on scope. If it fails miserably, they haven't lost all of the work on the TA and can pull $$ from the open sections to fix scope. Let the pilots decide.
Originally Posted by
Trip7
All this makes absolutely no sense. A WB job is a WB job. While the agreement is global based there will be some level of theatre protection. In the Grand Scheme of things this Agreement provides:
Delta reestablish pre COVID WB flying levels
Combined JV partner WB growth one for one with Delta WB Metal
Immediate job based penalties for non compliance that is measured quarter by quarter with no cure period
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
Spoken like a pilot with no WB experience. All NB flying is the same too right? 1 leg/day to an all inclusive is the same as 5/day to the villes and burgs...
Final language matters. Is it 1:1 airplanes or 1:1 pilot jobs (hint: we care about jobs not airframes)? Replacing 2x12 hr pacific flights replaced with 3x8hr Atlantic flights is a big loss for the pilots.
48 WB A hours + 48 WB B hours could be replaced with 24 WB A hours and 48 WB B hours. And yes "We DO think they would do that!" What about the 2 pilot Atlantic out of BOS? I share your optimism that our negotiators worked through the obvious loopholes and wouldn't agree to something this obvious. Our fleet plans of 4 pilot (A350) and 3/4 pilot (A330) airframes would lend to keeping a reasonable balance, especially with the IGW A350s on order.
Originally Posted by
Gone Flying
not all WB flying is equal. ATL- ICN and ATL-GRU both require the same number of aircraft to service daily (2 each by my math) but require wildly different number of pilots. Given how little WB flying we do, I’m not keen on giving them a way to grow it even less. I’ll reserve judgment until I see the wording, but based on what both the union and the company said, this does not sound like a win for pilots, we will see.
I agree 100% The exact language matters. If 4 pilot trips can be replaced with 3 pilot trips on a "1:1" basis its an automatic no.