Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

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.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

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.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Once they leave, then they no longer work for us.

Originally Posted by Giordano Bruno

This shameless attempt to revise your tarnished legacy is noted. Are you hoping for a comeback?

You were Donatelli's hand-picked scope waterboy. He pointed. You marched. Right off the TA1 cliff.

Mgmt shredded the "protections" you tout here. And made us arbitrate them over several years, with embarrassing results for the pilots. Much of our JV language is outdated. Times change. Apparently you have not.

I don't know what the new language will look like, but if you are doubling down on the current JV "protections," then I am even more inclined to support something that approaches things differently than you and your political overlords did.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

1.E.10. doesn't have enough teeth. The company disregards it and there's no way to force compliance if they just do what they want and don't bring the union in on the negotiations. 1.E.2. and 1.E.7/8 are good controls but the cure period needs to be eliminated. An immediate remedy will never be immediate, so the new jobs provision is a pipe dream or a non factor for the company with a 1:1 ratio. How does this count other JV flying like MEX CDG or YVR ICN that will carry a Delta code?

Originally Posted by Giordano Bruno

I'm a line pilot and not a lawyer, but here's what I come up with by pestering my reps. I was somewhat encouraged by the amount of thought that has gone into various scenarios that could bite us.

Delta can't sell tickets on beyond Mexico flying currently per the JV approval, and that deosnt' change
there is no WestJet JV
current 40% limit on # of delta pax on code share seats improved per AIP
won't know if this is a good deal until i see the langugae, but i;'m not ruling out new ideas. what we have now sucks

Originally Posted by Giordano Bruno

...won't know if this is a good deal until i see the language, but I'm not ruling out new ideas. what we have now sucks

Originally Posted by notEnuf

What sucks is the non-compliance. The language and concepts are valid. The new element is the horse trading among theaters and the jobs remedy. It could work but the non-compliance is on the company and we (ALPA) keep making concessions in the form of new language to allow past transgressions. I DON'T SEE A LANGUAGE CHANGE creating a BEHAVIOR CHANGE and the jobs provision is a feel good for concessions. I hope I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Starcheck102

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.