Originally Posted by
sailingfun
The decision to settle the scope grievance was a smart and intelligent choice not driven by emotion. We allowed the company to keep 76 seats in a few extra aircraft that in all probability they would never had had to remove anyway even if we had won the grievance in a slam dunk. By the time the grievance would have been heard its likely the company would have been in compliance.
Had we chosen to take it to the arbitrator and had he ruled against us the company would now be allowed more 76 today then with the agreement. Losing this in arbitration was a very real possibility and would have allowed the company larger numbers of RJ's for the duration of this contract. We also were able to obtain some limited furlough protection.
THis was a good agreement for the pilots that made sense. It was well thought out and the MEC approved it not Lee Moak. To recap we had almost zero possible gain even if we won the arbitration and a very serious down side if we lost.
Ya know, when it came out I was not happy that there was no word of it prior to the announcement of it. That was my issue.
Fact is that, it was smart. From a legal perspective, as in lawyer talk, it is a huge win to get that definition defined and in black and white. Court, or in our case arbitration is never a sure thing. Even if you have all the facts on your side, there is no guarantee that the decision will fall to your side. Those are the inconvenient facts guys.
I detest anything to do with allowing more jets on property of DCI, but in the end getting the wording to side with D-ALPA's definition in an agreement was huge. It stinks that it allowed more 76 seat jets, but the slide was capped under this interpretation of the CBA wording. Per the agreement we are capped at 153 76 seat jets until DAL adds the 763 airframe here. We are currently at 732 mainline jets, so that is a lot of growth before one more 76 seat jet shows up. (none of the options are converted so keep watching the companies feet)
We live in a legal word and now that this verbiage has a black and white meaning that both sides have agreed to, there is no more room to wrangle.
As to yamais, point on Lee. I like 12000 other pilots many not side with all of his decisions, but he is not self serving without regard to the pilots he represents. I have talked to him, and I have to tell you, that his intent is represent us the best as a single man can. I have respect for that. I do not have to agree with everything, and as an engaged pilot, I shouldn't, but to blasphemy a professional that way, is just wrong. (If it was remotely true the MEC reps would have ousted him a long time ago.)
Be ****ed, but do it for the correct reasons.