Originally Posted by Starcheck102

The administration is having some difficulty launching the latest MEC Alert. The first version displayed the signatures of former MEC representatives, and the second omitted the signatures of representatives from Councils 20, 44 and 48.

Every single representative of the Delta MEC supports the latest MEC Alert.

At this point they’re trying to decide between the options of a third version or some sort of editorial statement.

Kevin O’Mahoney

Originally Posted by Starcheck102

The administration is having some difficulty launching the latest MEC Alert. The first version displayed the signatures of former MEC representatives, and the second omitted the signatures of representatives from Councils 20, 44 and 48.

Every single representative of the Delta MEC supports the latest MEC Alert.

At this point they’re trying to decide between the options of a third version or some sort of editorial statement.

Kevin O’Mahoney

Originally Posted by PilotBases

All depends on what amount can flow down. LOA9 has the limit of 10% protected at Compass, I’d assume higher at Endeavor. Will wait and see what comes of it all. 35 RJs back for 35 new A350s might be an option...

Originally Posted by JamesBond

I say give it to 'em. Tie every RJ to a A330 or bigger and it is a one for one trade off. One RJ shows up, so does a 330. One 330 leaves, so does an RJ. That part of scope is meaningless diversion to the VAST majority of DAL pilot jobs. Let's see how bad they want it.

Change my mind.

Originally Posted by PilotBases

I’d agree with this.

One part missing is that they’re already voluntarily reducing planes under scope. There’s around 50 fewer 50 seat RJs now, and all the rest will be gone by 2024. (Scope limit is 125). Another part is that two dozen of the large RJs are physically gone, so if they want to add back “the 35” it will require new plane orders.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

I have directly heard and read plenty of evidence for scope gives, even recently, directly from Reps. The more radical the Rep, typically, the less they actually understand scope's function within the legal framework of labor law. The aggressive folks tend to muddy scope up with work rules. I've had two recently even offer that a "extra day of vacation" since it "increases staffing required" is "scope." I tried to be kind and educate in my rebuttal.

ALPA is a bottom-up organization. We control this thing by our feedback and our votes.

ALL Delta Air Lines flying is the WORK of the DELTA PILOTS in Section 1 C. 1. of our contract. We PERMIT some of our work to be outsourced. The intent of this is to DEFINE US as Delta pilots. We "DELTA PILOTS" because of this section of our contract.

Current Reps (almost all of them) hope to somehow manipulate scope to drive more widebody flying. That is a good thing, but scope is not a tool to drive a fleet mix (probably impossible to do anyway, pilots do not buy airplanes). The thing we must educate our Reps on is that we grow Delta pilot flying by making the definition of what a Delta pilot is (scope Section) more broad. This was the reason the "control" language in TA15 and C16 was so important, to capture "Delta flying" and ensure that we also broadly defined the JV partners to include subsidiaries controlled by a parent company (or one with control over schedules).

The easiest and most secure way to fix scope is to make scope more inclusive. Metaphorically, if this is a ranch, we want our fence so large that includes all of our horses.

So, if so much as a mule has Delta branded on its arse, then it should be inside the Delta fence, to only be ridden by Delta dudes and dudettes.

We should push to have Endeavor be Delta (seniority numbers) and just get rid of the permitted flying. It concerns me that only a small minority (maybe a third) of our Reps have annunciated the correct fix. The others:

• Would trade small jets for larger jets (they mistakenly think the path to larger jets is to just get some share of JV flying ((a. we already have it)(b. unless aligned with economic reality the proposed language is unenforceable and will fail under durress, which is how we got to this juncture))
• Would trade small jets for work rules - like a vacation (vacation has been mentioned twice in my small sample)
• Would allow more large RJs in a trade for fewer smaller RJs (my problem with this remains the fact that the economics of the larger RJs are so much better that it incentivizes replacement of mainline jets and these large RJs are economically viable at mainline when the cost of overhead is included)

The only correct answer is to remove the permissions and return to the core of scope: Delta pilots do all Delta flying. Build the fence around our entre operation (or as close as we can get)

Originally Posted by JamesBond

I couls almost give them a little multiple of that say 1 330 or larger for 2 RJs. That 330 will mean far more jobs than the RJ.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

I couls almost give them a little multiple of that say 1 330 or larger for 2 RJs. That 330 will mean far more jobs than the RJ.