Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 2883082)

Exactly. We gave away a gaggle of scope violating Gulfstreams at the private jet entity aropund 2 cycles ago. After a pathetic policy of hush hush deny deny deny and hope it goes away, that admin desperatly wanted to give it away for nothing and never had any intention to ever push for enforcement.

There was, thankfully, just enough vocal membership resistance that the issue was eventually forced and it was headed to a slam dunk, expensive and permanent cease and desist by any arbitrator anywhere and everyone knew it. Just before that inevitable smackdown though, it was slow walked and eventually rolled into the next CBA for free, allowing them to keep doing it forever.

It also happened during a time we were told we were overstaffed and "lucky we're not furloughing" over and over and over. When they gave it away for nothing, did we at least get flow down furlough protection in case we ever did? Nope. Non union pilots currently violating our scope had their jobs enshrined over ours permanently.

Now some want to try and normalize scope violations as no biggie and have even convinced themselves to sympathize with them.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 2883405)

The only way to secure the flow down is to bring it back in house. That would be a recapture of SCOPE, honestly I'd be happy to maintain SCOPE and have it enforced. But some would like to keep the ALPA tradition going. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 2883796)

Right, but I was referencing a tiered approach and not RJ's anyway. It was (I think) Gulfstreams/Globals or something like that at DPJ that violated our scope at the time. I agree those should have been brought in house, however the absolute least they could have done was secure flow down jobs for that number of positions. They did neither and instead forgave it and enshrined the company's ability to do it with non union, off list pilots permanently. That wasn't a scope recapture issue; we already at the time owned that scope. It was denied, slow walked and eventually given away for nothing.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 2884015)

I agree with the sentiment. My only point was that we are in the giving business, I want to be in the taking (back) business. But I'd settle for no business transactions in SCOPE. Baby steps is what we need apparently.

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2882100)

Delta has finally started growing again in the Pacific but the Scope Committee released an update that seemed overly negative with narrowly focused statistics.

They correctly reported the Company was in violation of Section 1 E. 8 over the last rolling 3 month period for US-Japan flying bringing violations to 26. However, that clause is only active because of ONE route Korean flies from Japan to Hawaii. Expecting the company to maintain USA Japan flying as they pull down the Narita Hub and shift to ICN is silly. USA-Korea flying is well above Scope minimums and Combined Korea/Japan-USA is currently above minimums. Will be interesting to see what the Arbitrator rules on Company vs DALPA interpretation of 1E.8

If the Korean NRT-HNL leisure route did not exist 14 scope violations would be gone bringing violations down to 12. Section 1 E.10. (agree to JV before) is another technicality, as is the A 350 factory pilots which brings true violations down to 10 violations, 7 AeroMexico, 3 West jet since 2016. Still too much but not as drastic painted. As Delta grows in the Pacific and to the UK only thing left to nitpick will be the USA-Japan flying as Delta will not return to Narita Hub levels.

IMO, DALPA needs to stop focusing on small technicalities in the Scope language that have no effect on jobs and focus on the big picture. It's what previous administrations did and that led Delta pilots to the top of the industry.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d3c68fe1af.jpg

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by flyforever1970 (Post 2884169)

This illustrates the total lack of understanding of what it means to have an "agreement". There are no "Oh well, we'll give you that one", or that must have been just an "honest mistake", when it comes to a contract. You are either in compliance, or not. These company apologists are so easy to spot.

Originally Posted by Sniper66 (Post 2884409)

They just bought more Korean stock in the open market

It never ends