Well we could start by voting this TA down and going back to the table for some more constructive engagement with the company.

I am having trouble getting my head around this TA as a Junior pilot and recent flow. The thing I'm struggling most with is the regional scope. I know this has reductions and caps but 255 sounds better to me than 325 70/76.

I can believe that NWA got away with starting Compass during BANKRUPTCY and giving Mesaba 36 jets to replace the Avro. What I can't believe is that Delta is running the same play on ALPA and our pilot group and guys are missing it. Remember how ****ed the NWA guys were when Compass first started and how they acted like it was the Compass guys that created the company?

The same thing is happening again this time but the company is doing well.
I have reviewed the TA and I will attend road shows and continue to educate myself but I can't allow the company to start two more Compass Airlines (70 more jets). I will vote no and be patient.

We can do better on pay and scope and the reps in DTW and MSP along with one in SEA think the same.

Johnso29 not an attack on you just answering the question. I don't post much but read all the time.

 

why not let dci have the 88 717's if they park 150 76 seaters? its a cut in seats right, so would that be a win? food for thought.

 

cni187,

The reason the more senior guys are disecting the TA work rules is because they have learned from bitter experience that the work rules RULE.

Pay rates alone don't tell the whole story. Work rules are where the cheese is hidden. It could be a lovely melange of tasty cheese on the cheese board or there could be a really stinky limberger plopped in the middle of the tray.

Money = Good
Work Rules = Even Better
Money + Good Work Rules = Even More Better

 

Not only that, but does anyone really believe our future hinges on getting 88 used orphaned aircraft and if that falls through we're screwed?

 

I think 200 50-seaters parked will happen with or without this TA regardless. That is where some folks have a difference of opinion.

 

I have a challenge to my fellow APCr's.

Have any of you encoutered someone who says they will take the early retirement provision?

My guess is most will come from the former northern side of the fence.

I just want to know if there has been a sighting.

 

Two honest questions for you:

1) What would you say, in general terms, is the goal of a Scope clause.

2) What is the difference between a passenger who buys a ticket that says "Delta" who flies on an Air France 747 versus one who flies on a Comair 50 seat RJ.....or one who flies on an Alaska 737 versus one who flies on a Shuttle America Ejet.

 

i get it, i'm just pointing out that because something appears to be a "win" in seats cut may not be "win" at all. read- i dont want them to have the 717's it was only to prove a pointl. I'd rather keep the 76 seaters at 255 and cut the 50 seaters out, which will happen on its own. Management can have all the 76 seaters they want IF theres DAL pilots at the controls, so if they want more that bad then....

 

Someone who gets it. Buy 300 of them. They will be flown at DAL, however. Why is this so difficult to understand by the small faction of the "yes" spinmeisters?

 

If RJET has proven one thing, it is that pilots from THR same seniority list can fly on multiple certificates. Do do that instantly, would require unity throughout the delta brand. People are whining about a 35% hiring quote which makes the former impossible to talk about.