A staple is the only way this happens. Delta needs those airplanes to operate and DALPA has a chance due to industry circumstances to take back the 76 seat flying. Are you going to any major or only Delta? Either way SCOPE becomes your problem.

 

I’d be for a staple, even if a fence was implemented for x amount of years. In fact, I’d prefer a staple over a flow.

 

I've said those very words, all be it decades ago. And I'm still saying them.

 

Not exactly, the staple would only be possible after DALPA wins the arbitration. Management is currently exploring the least costly option to get those aircraft back flying.

 

Unfortunately that would not go over well with DAL shareholders. So while 900’s are brought in house you have your competition (UA,AA) flying 175’s at C scale rates?

This would be a better industry with all regional flying brought in house, but good luck with DL management going that route.

 

I am not disagreeing with you. My point is that if the deal was in fact intended to be a one time specific agreement with a flow down to Compass and Compass only, why are we even having this discussion? I am flabbergasted, bewildered, dumbfounded [insert your adjective here] that the if the union thought this deal was exclusive to Compass they couldn't come up with the proper verbiage for the PWA.

Either:

The deal was never intended to be exclusive to Compass.
DALPA and our legal counsel are incompetent.

There is really no other explanation for the situation that we find us in. Maybe some DALPA guys thought it was the former but never checked the verbiage but what about the NC and the legal review? How could they let it go through if the intent was a Compass only exclusive flow?

Scoop

 

I’m not sure I agree. PWA 1.B.47.f is pretty clear: if a flow down at compass or another airline ceases to exist, the number of permissible 76-seat RJs in section [fill it in] is reduced by 35.

That’s clear. If this then that. This occurred, so that is now the case. There is no language for the resurrection of a flow down of which I’m aware. As a silly analogy, if I tell my daughter that if she fails to mow the lawn twice a week her curfew moves up an hour, and she mows once, her curfew is now moved. next week if she mows twice, I get to have that parenting moment where I say something fatherly like, “that would have served you well last week. Sorry. See you at 10.”

Or logic. If A then B implies if not B then not A. But not A tells you nothing. The converse is implied but the inverse isn’t.

Now if some negotiator’s notes demonstrate that the understanding was that rebuilding a dead flow down undid the 35-bird reduction, then I agree: somebody needs to go back to the writing part of the bar exam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Dude, you're the one building animosity.

We'd all love a staple, and I think most of us support defending scope, but we can only play the hand we're dealt, and refusing this deal would be foolhardy.

 

Crazy to me that an LOA that has this much of a direct impact on the future of 9E pilots isn’t going to MEMRAT.

 

​​​​​​It doesn't seem to be controversial in our crew rooms at all, only on APC. I talked to my CA rep, and he said feedback he's gotten has been >90% positive. He said if he thought it was actually remotely controversial that he'd stomp his foot in the next MEC meeting and demand a MEMRAT, but he just doesn't see it...