Excellent argument, well reasoned and well stated.

 

And undeniable. Reread your own posts if you don't believe me. As an unelected MEC bureaucrat, it's unacceptable for you to speak to this group the way you do. You're supposed to work for us. Instead you mostly sound like you loathe us.

Carl

 

That makes two of us then. Me and YOU.

The TA has been vetted by lawyers with years of RLA experience, both with ALPA, and DAL. Unlike you, they've read the applicable TA sections, and are very familiar with the terms of the Fee For Departure agreements DAL has with its regionals.

Nothing the the TA requires other ALPA pilots to be furloughed, or lose their jobs. If you can find it, please post it.

 

Why don't we bring 76 seat to main line?

This would end the RJ wars and wip-saw.
With new FTDT rules costs must be close.

We have a pay scale and increased work hours.

 

You will pretty much be ignored when you suggest that. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

Folks,

Doing a little research on ALV's. I have obtained the ALV's back to Dec of '11 by changing the date on the hyperlink under the Crew Resource and Scheduling page. Anyone know how to get ALV's further back?

 

There is no loophole. What is being proposed is a succession of events. Without A, B cannot happen. When B happens, then C MUST happen.

A = Delta Mainline gets 1.25 717's
B = DCI gets 1 76 RJ
C = DCI then MUST park approximately 3 (between 2.7 and 4-ish) 50 seaters

Every time A happens, then the process can begin again until B = 70. Then the hard cap is reached and any further growth can only occur at mainline.

Every 10 times B happens, a snapshot is taken of the Mainline to DCI block hour ratio. That ratio becomes the new minimum ratio and cannot be reduced - ie mainline shrinks, DCI must shrink by the same amount (block hours not airframes.)

What you're suggesting is not possible under the proposed agreement. Hope that helps.

 

I asked earlier when the snapshot happens and was told 01/01/2014.

If it happens every 10 deliveries, that would be better.

 

No Carl, what you don't like is that I have facts to counter your incessant blathering.

Now get one thing straight. I work for Delta Air Lines just like you do. I get my paycheck from Delta Air Lines just like you do. I don't work for you or any other pilot, so don't give me the "I'm your boss and don't get uppity with me" routine. You are not my boss. Sometimes, the union rents my time from the company and repays them for my time. I wouldn't care a whit if that never happened ever again. People asked for my help and I gave it. I have a lucrative side business that I set aside to do this work.

I was away from home constantly for months. At the beginning of this project my wife snapped her ankle in half slipping on an icy porch. I have been trying to balance this project and also take care of my family and mostly my family got short shrift. That is pretty tough to live with.

Some people decided to sacrifice their lives to work on behalf of 12,000 pilots and some people decided to sit on the sidelines and do nothing but throw rocks. Try for once to saddle up and put the lives of 12,000 pilots and their families in your hands and see what is more stressful, the life of the combatant or the life of the armchair quarterback. Wouldn't it be easy if we could just make silly demands like you recommend and have management accept them all. In that world girls fly little pink ponies around Candy Cane city. In the real world it doesn't work like that.

I don't loathe pilots, only bitter, old Red Book warriors that spend their lives wallowing in their bile.

 

Really Karnak? Would these be the same lawyers with years of RLA experience that wrote our current section 1? The section 1 with the holding company loophole that RAH exploited? The loophole that these lawyers with years of RLA experience said was valid and they couldn't fight? The same lawyers that fixed it for us now by PERMANENTLY ALLOWING THE RAH SCOPE ABUSE TO CONTINUE because it will be part of our contract and no longer an abuse?

Oh, OK. So if our completely legally invalid language kicks in that "requires" RJ's to be parked if mainline jets go down, those RJ airlines affected cannot furlough the redundant pilots? How will that work? Will we force them to park aircraft and reduce block hours...but keep all the pilots?

You're incoherent.

Carl