Elvis90

<<<<<<<<+1>>>>>>>> ALPA and I apparently have different goals.

Tomcat

Thanks for the response Slow.... This is one ugly pig, but I'm going to do my homework. The payrates are disappointing to say the least..... The DC contribution not being phased in until later? Really? Scope is so damn complicated that it's difficult to know how it's actually going to effect us, but it doesn't feel right and I told myself that I wouldn't vote for something that moves the line again.

But I'll tell you the thing that just sticks at me the most......that really makes me wonder what in the hell I'm paying ALPA for.... is reducing our profit sharing to fund our meger bump in payrates and the two years at 3% that won't keep up with inflation. What is that? We are busting our A--es out on the line to save money every where we can and you reduce our profit sharing. We're flying clean airplanes as long as we can and still meet stabilized aproach critirea, starting APU's at the last minute, single engine taxi to the point that I'm busting my hump to get throught the checklist before we take the runway and yet this sends a message that it doesn't matter enough to keep our profit sharing as is....... ***! I go out of the way to engage our passengers to strengthen our brand..... You lose me.... you've lost a lot of guys......

Present the TA, but don't waste your time shoveling a pile of crap down our throats about the reduced profit sharing. The number may not be staggering on this, but the message is clear.

TC

johnso29

slow,

What's the 50 seater count if we are above 767 mainline hulls and at 223 76 seaters? What's the RJ cap? Are we looking at 102 70 seaters PLUS 223 76 seaters?

Surprise

Someone mentioned that this was someone's pet project, and it got me thinking. Of the DCI carriers, who is non-ALPA? SkyWest, Republic, and GoJet? I think GoJet is too new to the DCI game to matter much, but ALPA has reason to be angry at SkyWest and Republic, right? SkyWest voted them down twice and Republic went with the Teamsters. What do you want to bet this mandatory hiring this is retaliatory in nature and coming from ALPA national? And if it is, isn't that all the more reason for Delta pilots to go with DPA? I voted for ALPA in 2007 but I'm wondering if that wasn't a mistake. It seems like it's a messed up organization on a number of levels.

sailingfun

There is another piece to this TA puzzle that will be announced before the vote. The TA will be a marginal pass with the junior pilots voting for it more so then the senior pilots. It fails in my two biggest needs, pay and retirement. When the last piece is dangled it will sadly ratify.

nwaf16dude

Are you referring to the early retirement package or a jet order?

Boomer

If you're going with the "ALPA's out to get them" theory, you can look into the relationship between GoJetsssss and TSA. There is a dash of animosity there if you look real hard.

flyallnite

I can't really imagine the junior guys being too jazzed up by this.. I mean, the old bait-and-switch magical 100 seat unicorn jet for more 76 seat RJ's and a formula that A. Einstein would find confusing... but do tell the final straw!

A6danimal

I don't care who's pet project the DCI preference hiring language was, it JUMPED out at me, as I read the TA, as something that wasted at least 5 minutes of my negotiating committee's time (in an "accelerated" negotiation) -on behalf of another pilot group- that would've been better used saying:
"Tell Mr. Anderson that 4% at DOS just is NOT GOING TO PASS WITH THIS PILOT GROUP!"

I am deeply disappointed.

Scoop

Slowplay - If it were only so simple. Am I reading this incorrectly?



Section 1 - Scope
1-24
1 a. 50% the following percentage of themonthly passenger seats may be occupied by
2 passengers traveling under the DL code:
3 1) 50% for flights between SEA and either MSP or ATL, and
4 2) 35% for flights in any monthall other city pairs, or
5 b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling
6 under the DL code per flight segment, if in the month involved this results in a
7 lesser number of passenger seats occupied by such passengers than under
8 Section 1 O. 5. a.


So, not to mention all the exceptions for LAX and SEA - which are still in the TA - we can go to 50% on the above routes and 35% in others.

LAX, SEA, MSP and ATL can basically be 50% or more (LAX/SEA exemptions) with the rest at 35%. Is this much, if any of a restriction? We can basically fill half to 1/3 of Alaska's flights with DAL passengers and be in compliance.

Is this really the kind of tight Scope language we need?

Scoop