Some concerns here with how you are understanding this agreement.

[ QUOTE=Funk;3426734]My interpretation of what I heard was that any block hour by a JV has to be offset 1:1 by DAL wi debody flying. That’s what Ambrosi said.[/QUOTE]

Please please please everyone needs to understand that 1:1 ratio applies only to GROWTH, not to the total flying accomplished. It appears from your post that you understand that the end result is we will be flying 50% of any block hours. This is not true under the terms outlined in the AIP. And the real issue for me is that I think many of those reading the bullet points are interpreting it the same way. GROWTH does not mean the same as TOTAL SHARE OF FLYING.

If we are at, for example, 46.5% share of JV/codeshare flying and the total flying DOUBLES, what will our share be with 1:1 GROWTH? We will still be at 46.5%! Why? Why are we not looking to INCREASE share of flying for Delta pilots to a MINIMUM of 50% with 1:1 growth after we have reached parity?

This is why this agreement should be a non starter. We are already flying less than 50% in most theaters if not all. All that 1:1 GROWTH does is forever lock us in at a minority percentage of this flying. This is why the company wants this deal.

We should be driving for a deal that requires PARITY (50% minimum of all JV/codeshare flying) and then requiring 1:1 GROWTH.

You sure don't mind being wrong, do you?

Because we are not on strike.

I don't completely get why C16 craps on our experts for purely political reasons, basically fires them, then is surprised when their skills are recognized and they are offered a job on the other side of the table. What did C16 think would happen?

It is not a move I'd have made, but, management was going to hire someone to do the job. This has happened plenty of times in the past, is happening now, but for some reason this one instance made it to Chit Chat-landia.

If C16's theory is that Desi will kick our arse at the table, then why didn't they put their pilots' needs first and their personal politics last? My frustration with ALPA is that some Reps put politics before product.

------

There were good experts on both sides of the table. I am keeping an open mind and will evaluate whatever the product is objectively. In my view ALL Delta flying should be performed by Delta pilots. If most of the $$ in the cabin are DL code, it should be Delta pilots at the controls.

Please please please everyone needs to understand that 1:1 ratio applies only to GROWTH, not to the total flying accomplished. It appears from your post that you understand that the end result is we will be flying 50% of any block hours. This is not true under the terms outlined in the AIP. And the real issue for me is that I think many of those reading the bullet points are interpreting it the same way. GROWTH does not mean the same as TOTAL SHARE OF FLYING.

If we are at, for example, 46.5% share of JV/codeshare flying and the total flying DOUBLES, what will our share be with 1:1 GROWTH? We will still be at 46.5%! Why? Why are we not looking to INCREASE share of flying for Delta pilots to a MINIMUM of 50% with 1:1 growth after we have reached parity?

This is why this agreement should be a non starter. We are already flying less than 50% in most theaters if not all. All that 1:1 GROWTH does is forever lock us in at a minority percentage of this flying. This is why the company wants this deal.

We should be driving for a deal that requires PARITY (50% minimum of all JV/codeshare flying) and then requiring 1:1 GROWTH.[/QUOTE]

This

My problem with this SCOPE deal is that it follows in the footsteps of all the rest. 1) company is out of compliance 2) section 6 finally rolls around 3) ALPA writes them back into compliance with a "new concept" agreement. 4) see #1

And the next down turn which requires a SCOPE pullback will also be so onerous that we will have a grievance for the theoretical AE that is mandated, but magically cancelled or unfilled. Even if the arbitrator sides with ALPA it will be several years out of compliance without remedy.

The tried and true deflect, attack some other target, continue, ADG 101. He wasn’t fired, he was at National then went to work at the company. You need to brush up your union skills Tiger and stop looking out for yourself. “It was Council 16’s fault he on the other side of the table now!” “Someone has to do it”. Like RH and his cool 250k for consulting against his brother an while holding a job at National ? Fun little lawsuit. Curls and his seniority website that he somehow gets for info for? These are the guys you hold in high esteem. I question your choices and your integrity.

Why are you insulting me? You had as much to do with those people's personal decisions as I did; nothing.

You do demonstrate a remarkable amount of envy and pettiness. What we should do is hold our current reps responsible because they currently have a DUTY to us under labor law. Once they leave, then they no longer work for us.

I Hold Elon Musk's skills as an entrepreneur in high esteem. I also think he is a jerk. Very few human beings are worthy of being demonized or worshipped. I get it, you do not like Delta pilots. Well, it has got to be tough to be you around this place.

Whoever wrote above that this follows a pattern of the company violating scope, then us rewriting scope to forgive their violations; that is correct. Both management and ALPA are to blame. Both have been effectively asleep at the wheel on scope and specifically the intent and design of 1 E. 10. has been violated, repeatedly.

This scope deal IS the argument management made against us in the 1 P. 4. violation back in 2015.

Without seeing more details, a very high level, it would seem our current 1 E. 8. language is improved by 25% with the company not being required to operate to/from the partner's nation. If all the JV's are lumped in, then this would be a very slight improvement to 1.P 4. and a HUGE REDUCTION in our protected flying from 1 R. (-30% of the global balance required). I ask, if we are currently doing 72-74% of the Global JV balance, why wouldn't growth also be 3:1 in our favor? We are going from a status quo 3 to 1, down to 1 to 1.

It would seem we negotiated from political talking points instead of data.

ALPA has the DUTY to protect us. Management does not have that duty.

The current scope compliance report is incomplete. The details needed for pilots to compare the effect of the language proposed has not been provided. The current and future schedule loads that would give us a basis for measurement are not there. The omission of this data (when it has been provided after my complaint) is a change from past practice. I am getting old and don't know that I have another big scope battle in me, but personally, my vote on this is no. I am open to looking at more data and revising my opinion.

It looks like you’re stuck. The MEC isn’t going to send a TA to MEMRAT that they oppose. Every TA that you vote upon will be subject to positive spin.

Nice analysis! So in the end it comes down to buying less wide bodies, out sourcing the crews and getting back to buybacks in a quicker fashion. That's what this is really about. Even if foreign carriers will once again, fail.