Rhino - Sir, read your contract. There simply are not going to be as many unspoken for Delta slots for the most qualified to compete for.
Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
Can we, the sheep, have a slight review of the bi-lateral flow idea? I get the downside, but where does it stand and who is pushing it?
Our (yours and mine - no matter which part of Delta you work in) Our MEC Chairmen are pushing it as a lower cost scope substitute. They are talking it up and held a meeting last month to talk it up some more as THE strategic direction our union is taking scope in.
In exchange for giving me a job flying an RJ (which I walked away from top 30% and longevity to come to Delta) our Regionals are offered a someday promise (which might not ever come true in this business) of employment if they give up their longevity to walk across a mostly imaginary line.
This is supposed to replace mainline scope, narrow body fleet replacement / growth and job security and we are supposed to like it. Better yet, it is hoped we never have to use it, because by the look of things it will not work if needed anyway.
This strategic scope plan is a horribly flawed idea. It is so flawed that I do not expect it to really go anywhere, but, it provides political eyewash that many will accept if they don't bother to think about how this would work when called on to function during duress.
It is basically the same system US Air has been trying to implement. If you are curious about how it works, just look over there and follow the plight of US Air pilots at MidAtlantic.
Arguably it has prevented furloughs at Delta because it is unworkable. So there is a "silver lining" to that. Bottom line, flow through agreements are no substitute for having the airplanes flown at mainline by mainline pilots.