2007 hires were not close at all to WB captain on this AE. Still about 1700 numbers away. WB continues to be 25+ years seniority.

 

Once 2007 hires can hold WB A, 2014 hires will pretty much be able to hold it also. So that 25+ seniority is going to drop fast once that wall finally falls.

 

2007 hires are in the low 5K seniority numbers. Assuming WB A moves from 3,500 to the low 4,000s with deliveries it is still about two years away.

 

The stated goal is to expand international and grow margins to equal domestic. ~15%, the partners have to be looked at as part of Delta with regard to control and pricing. There is definitely a plan to increase International operations around the world. Keeping Delta at 50/50 growth will be key in the next few years. This is where management is focussing growth with a mature domestic market that will be up gauged incrementally. Our order book and flexibility with the 767 bodes well for the plan but we must keep them in compliance.

 

Global Scope Engage Podcast is out.

 

https://dal.alpa.org/Dashboards/Podcast-Dashboard

 

I am always worried about holding companies and corporate structures which are created to evade our agreements. I think we built a more resilient and broad fence in 2016.

The point Vice Chairman, George Strehlow made in the podcast that the new Section 1. O. is in addition to our existing scope language is important.

 

I have read through the scope negotiators note pad, I have watched the scope roadshow and I've skimmed this thread and I can't see any good reasons not to vote for the scope agreement.

Can any of the nae sayers help me see a good reason not to vote for the scope language?

 

You are right the language in the Global Scope agreement is pretty good. My main problem with GS is the missing sections on trans boarder and narrow body flights between theaters. I know there are some generic protections for these built into scope (1.E.2….), but I don’t think they are good enough.

To me the GS vote is a choice between taking a much improved agreement now and trying to plug the few holes later vs trying to write all the language now.

My problem with the plug holes later approach is in my opinion the company mainly wants the ability to have theater flexibility on WB. That desire is our leverage to achieve equitable growth, and the remediation language. Once the company has their flexibility, why would they negotiate on the missing sections?

If/when we approach the company to write for example Aeromexico scope language, the company will most likely argue that those are covered by the generic language that we just agreed to and ask us to honor that agreement.

I think adding the missing language is important to do before we have a new global scope agreement and while we still have some leverage to get the company to negotiate.

 

The union has already said there is no more leverage to force a global scope agreement. It is unlikely to be revisited if this is declined.