Am I the only idiot who keeps scrolling back to find the oft-referenced section 1b40 and reading a definition of the "Mainland USA" (48 states! who'da thunk it?)

It's supposed to be 1b46, right? I guess we pressured 'em into releasing the dang thing before they had time to proof read it.

 

Dalpa got owned. No vote here.

If your stupid enough to send us scope concessions with the company making billions then your fired.

We didn't even get the carrot...(pay).....we just got the friggin stick.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Oh...slapped a stamp on that dpa renewal card tonight!!!

 

So that's a 28% pay raise right there! (13.5 = 10.5x1.28-ish) I hadn't figured that out til your post, thanks! gotta rethink my vote now. If only I can just fill up my schedule with all 13.30 3 day trips ... assuming they still make them that way with the 2nd day off, preferably in my hometown ... yeah, that's the ticket! Of course I'd have to do 6 of them, so I'd be working 18 days, plus my commute days to my MD'd base, but OK.

(scotch, neat. sorry)

 

AS entire scope is in 3 pages and doesn't mention rj seat size. I can email to you if you'd like.

Baja.

 

At NWA we had a 4:15 min day, so at least it's a step up from that.

In any event, it really isn't a pay raise. We are still tied to the PBS parameters. So, by making a particular rotation pay more, all it will do is maybe buy you a day or two off. Instead of getting a four day on your line to get your hours, you may only get a two day, for example.

 

Why give that up? Would we let DCI operate 99K lbs aircraft? If DL wants those at DPJ, we need to fly them. If attrition in the category and/or being able to hire who they want for those "ultra VIP/HVC" customers was the concern, we could address that with a longer training freeze for those who bid it as well as giving the company a choice in which seniority list pilots they choose to do it. But to give it up entirely, to a non union pilot group is insane. Those are our jets. We own that flying. We can be flexibile and work with the company on those, but giving it up is out of the question.

 

Caution! the following is a rant that nobody ('cept maybe grammar hawks and lawyer-language-haters) cares about, nor should you. I refer you to my disclaimer at the end of my previous post.

Why the hockey-sticks (no offense, Hockey) did we line out six lines about paint except the word "aircraft", then add a "No" in front of it and then many lines later finish the sentence with "will be flown by less than 2 pilots" instead of just lining out the whole thing and writing the new sentence so that it could be easily read in one place? Is there some secret handshake about not wasting any words that can be reused?

And if so, shouldn't we have re-used the word "in" in section 1 d 8 b 1) ? Although we would have had to capitalize it, so maybe not ...

Nevermind, rant over.

Maybe I should try to read the rest of it tomorrow.

 

True. Unless...

"The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control"

And then the Company gets to keep all those awesome shiny new scope jets forever and ever no matter what happens to the mainline.

 

I need chapter and verse for that... what pages and lines?

I haven't been able to find that which applies in the way you're talking about.

 

You mean like "Gee, we tried to get out of all those 50 seat leases but we just can't. They wont let us and we don't have any control." Meanwhile, we DCI has taken delivery of all those new 76 seaters and we are busy parking old MD88's due to the new 717/A319.