![]() |
Originally Posted by ChazzMMichaels
(Post 3426034)
I don't think they're asking it to be written in "lay speak", just for someone to explain the legal-eze in plain English once it comes out so we can all understand it. I don't think that's unrealistic at all.
|
Hopefully there are examples we can read along with but no language is perfect and youre always going to have intent of language discussions.
we gotta wait for the language but i am pretty excited at piecemeal deals. Contracts are easier to resolve once sections are signed off or passed. Stay away from section 6 if at all possible and just keep passing LOAs as you go that improve the contract when you have the leverage. My guess is there's going to be nothing in there about regional jet scope but i hope im wrong. Wouldnt mind seeing both RJs and widebodies at delta going forward. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3426040)
Just vote yes because they said so. TAs have the backing of the union or they wouldn't be TAs. (sarc)
|
Originally Posted by ChazzMMichaels
(Post 3426056)
This is a good point. I will not be trusting ALPA to give me an objective interpretation. Once they send it for memrat, they have a vested interest in spinning the positive. We all saw what happened to the MEC that sent us a TA that failed memrat. The question is, who do we trust for objectivity? FWIW I won't be trusting anything I read on here that much either. Piece all the inputs together and make the best judgment you can?
|
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 3426092)
For historical perspective, TAs on LOAs didn't used to get sent to MEMRAT. The MEC just voted on it and that was that, you had to deal with it. Had the MEC really wanted to keep that kind of twist on it, why did they change the way LOAs are ratified to default to MEMRAT?
|
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3426044)
Hopefully there are examples we can read along with but no language is perfect and youre always going to have intent of language discussions.
we gotta wait for the language but i am pretty excited at piecemeal deals. Contracts are easier to resolve once sections are signed off or passed. Stay away from section 6 if at all possible and just keep passing LOAs as you go that improve the contract when you have the leverage. My guess is there's going to be nothing in there about regional jet scope but i hope im wrong. Wouldnt mind seeing both RJs and widebodies at delta going forward. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 3426092)
For historical perspective, TAs on LOAs didn't used to get sent to MEMRAT. The MEC just voted on it and that was that, you had to deal with it. Had the MEC really wanted to keep that kind of twist on it, why did they change the way LOAs are ratified to default to MEMRAT?
Edit: I believe this will be the first serious test on the point you're making, so we shall see how it goes |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3426040)
Just vote yes because they said so. TAs have the backing of the union or they wouldn't be TAs. (sarc)
|
So we have enough wide bodies on property and enough scheduled for delivery to fly more WB block hours than at any time in history, assuming the ER's really stay. Management's limitation is that they cannot place code on more than 40% of a foreign carrier on a route segment. Not an issue if we operate that segment. So management wants to go over 40% on a foreign carrier and that will allow Delta pilots to fly more WB block hours? It doesn't make sense to me. Haven't made up my mind, but didn't the ALPA scope compliance officer from national take a management position at Delta, on Delta's behalf, to negotiate this? How could allowing Delta to place code on 100% of a given Korean flight allow us to grow in EU? Why wouldn't we just expand in EU anyways and keep the 40% limitation in place at Korean? Especially if 321s are flying the 8.5 hour stuff out of JFK and BOS. What exactly will the WB then be flying?
I know, I jumped around a bit in there. |
I’m voting yes because I’m senior. Everyone with 10yrs or more to go should vote NO for these reasons:
-This should be part of an overall TA vote. To separate it out is stupid -if we are voting on this separately, we need money( pay raise to go with it) - What exactly is the benefit to pilots immediately? Not some down the road promise of growth. - this is a total win for the company. They’ve wanted this for a long time - just remember, DALPA negotiated the Pacific scope to replace the Nartita required slots. after the LOA was signed, DAL shut down Narita flying and outsourced almost all of our Pacific flying Less than 10yrs? vote no |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:29 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands