Originally Posted by DelDah Capt

Well, I'm not sure you get my point, because in answer to your original question, yes, if I could somehow use 717s to improve scope, I'd do it.

So let me answer my own questions (in a condescending and pontificating way ):

1) The purpose of our Scope clause should be to do everything to ensure that Delta pilots fly Delta passengers

2) From a Delta pilot's perspective, there is no difference between any of those passengers....they were all outsourced....don't care if it was on a big plane or a little plane. Either way, some of their ticket money went to somebody elses' pilot.

This Scope makes it harder for Delta management to outsource a passenger. There are simply fewer seats for them to stash passenger butts on. Further, for the first time, this Scope demands that Delta pilots must do a certain percentage of the flying....and as 76 seaters are added (even though overall seats decline) the amount of contractual flying that we demand actually increases.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Highlighted in red. Read the TA. You obviously have not.

If you are junior, you are saying no to your captain's seat for a while longer. I don't care how you vote, I already have mine. It's up to you.

No scare tactics... no spin. I read the agreement. It is a home run. I see a lot of target fixation on this board, and it is causing a LOT of myopia that leads to glaucoma which leads to blindness. The really sad thing is, it is preventable... Educate yourselves rather than firing before you aim.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Seems to me that we are going to be paid above everybody on the list. Including SWA.

YOUR pay metric won't necessarily be the same, and there ARE differences because of the DC contribution rates. But you have a full defined benefit plan... (probably not at 747 rates, and I guess it really must suck to have 330 rate to calculate it with...) There are many DAL pilots that will have more money in their pockets at the end of this agreement than will SWA pilots. It is a significant bite of the apple. The next dot on the scale.. which we will be able to start working toward as soon as the ink is dry on this one, will be the UPS 767 rates. And that will happen in less than 3 years. That is the dot that will keep you from leaving when you should.

So keep encouraging all the junior guys to vote this down Carl. YOU have nothing to lose..... You have yours.

Originally Posted by tsquare

You are really playing the fear card of FM??? Really Carl? And yet you come on here and tell everybody that since the company wanted an early agreement that if we vote this down we will get a speedy renegotiation? First of all, FM doesn't have to be written into anything. If there is another 9/11, even without the clause, the company can do whatever it needs to do to survive, and every single court in the land will back them up. It is a flat out misrepresentation of the facts for you to come on here and say otherwise. And it is a scare tactic to boot.

Item 2 above is nothing more than you pressing your donut agenda. yawn.

Item 3 is so out to lunch I have no idea where to begin.

Your ground is nothing but fearmongering.

Originally Posted by tsquare

But all you junior guys be sure to ignore item 3... Carl will still be at the top of the food chain, looking down at you with smug satisfaction knowing that you are working for him to keep his place on the throne, because we have all read his arguments about how difficult and productive the 747 is, and all that rot...

Items 4-6 will be so far out in the future that the youngest guy on the property will be a 330 captain by the time they hit "A scale" rates..

Unbelievable that any of you give him any quarter.

Originally Posted by orvil

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's important, so I am posting it here, also.

This is the first contract negotiated in the Internet Age. C2K was completed as the internet information age was in it's infancy. Now, this contract language is instantly available for all to review.

I think this is a game changer for everyone involved.

In a previous contract negotiation, the MEC would produce the highlights/talking points. We would all review them. We would go to the roadshow and listen to one side's interpretation of the contract. We didn't have the actual contract language available to us for review. We had to trust that the highlights/talking points were correct in their interpretation of the agreement. Many times the actual language hadn't even been written. We voted based on these general outlines. A lot of times these interpretations proved to be incorrect in the actual application.

Fast forward to business under the new agreement. With the final contract language in place, we have the opportuniy to review the actual agreement. 12,000 Lawyers at work 24/7. In some cases, the talking points don't correctly reflect the actual language of the TA.

The sick leave portion of the TA is a perfect example. While the talking point looks good and seems to be an improvement, the final sectin of the agreement essentially negates the previous improvements by the insertion of a vague phrase. This phrase essentially opens the door to the Company to monitor all sick occurances. It also waives your right of privacy under the HIPPA act.

This is only one of many examples of why you must read this agreement section by section in order to understand the TA. Only through this detailed understanding can you make an informed decision.

What is interesting about the process is that the NC and LEC may not have fully understood everything that they have agreed to in this TA. Only by us turning this thing inside out and upside down can everyone see if it a worthy work product.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of these loopholes. Economic issues aside, there is a lot of very sloppy language that needs mopping up.

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy

First, is this a legal type of hiring discrimination? Second, could this significantly screw the company and thus the pilot group going forward?

For example, fast forward 8 years down the road. Delta is hiring like crazy to replace retirements along with other airlines (I know I know ... the elusive hiring boom). In a few years, the pool of available "well qualified" ALPA DCI pilots is exhausted. But the language forces the company to keep hiring ALPA DCI carrier pilots. Ultimately, the company is forced to hire from a pool of pilots who may not have be as qualified as pilots from another pool.

Another example, what happens if the number of DCI carriers is reduced over time (bankruptcy, non-renewal of contracts). Then, 35% of pilots would be coming from a smaller pool of pilots which further cause qualified pilot shortages.

Do we as a pilot group want this?

Look, I know I was military trained and this isn't a military vs. regional rant. There are plenty of military pilots that shouldn't be working for DAL.

I'd rather DAL be able to pick the best from ALL sources of pilots ... not forcing them to pick 35% from an ALPA DCI carrier.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I agree.

According to alpha's number there is 3.6M block hours and we have 53.9%.

IF THIS IS RIGHT... we could add airplanes but have a net reduction of mainline while reducing DCI to the 450 number, still have the same ASMs, near block hours for mainline, etc and be in compliance with the 1.56 ratio.

The left column is now, the right column is after we take 717s and exercise 739 options and the like to get the ASMs up. Sure I made the fleet numbers up on the right, but I just wanted to show we could buy new mainline jets and replace old ones with the help of the 76 seaters and keep that 1.9M block hours and with the reduction in 50-seaters you could still hit the 1.56 ratio: