More Bacon

Slowplay, I don't see you defending/spinning the Republic cutout on the other threads.

This could be the biggest loophole permitted in DALPA's loophole-laden history. I'm curious to see how they spin it.

Carl Spackler

You and I have clearly had our back and forth in the past, but I hope you'll really listen to what I'm about to say:

I've been you alfa. I've been up to my eyeballs in data without having any time to interract with line pilots for a while. You can easily fall into a bunker mentality. That's where you and the rest of the MEC is right now. Not an insult, I just recognize it when I see it.

What you've stated in your entire post above (especially with what I've bolded) is that MEMRAT is really just a rubber stamp that's almost not worth the wasted time. I know you don't think that's what you've said, but you have. Here's why:

It does NOT matter if the NC has had 350 back and forths or 3,500. The NC and even the MEC are NOT the decision makers...the members are. It's not my opinion, it's the ALPA CBL's written language. O'Malley and all the reps have stated this over and over again. The decision makers have gotten this for the FIRST time. If we vote NO on this and send it back to the MEC, that will be the FIRST back and forth...not the 351st.

For you to state that we're kidding ourselves if we think management will move in any fashion to our NO vote, then why have MEMRAT? Do you not see by this statement that you're devaluing MEMRAT to the point of a membership rubber stamp of the MEC's actions? This is how a top-down organization behaves...not a bottom-up one?

Seriously alfa, you have to consider the damage of what you've just said here. Your position dictates that you revise these comments.

Carl

NuGuy

Heyas,

It's clear from Alfa's in depth knowledge and claims that he's NOT and ordinary line pilot, but a MEC committee member (or chairman?) that has intimate details.

Keep this in mind...he doesnt work for the line pilots, nor the rep. We can't directly fire him, NOR can the reps.

The word is that after the initial presentation, the vote was 9 against, including at least one in ATL. Those 9 represented a MAJORITY of the roll call votes, which would have sunk the TA.

To think there were not political machinations that occured to switch those 4 votes is being naive.

Nu

slowplay

Ahh, I think I get it now.

The DCI refleeting option is a less expensive option than eating the sunk costs, engine maintenance and aircraft overhaul expense associated with management's option of going without us. That was the opportunity that created this deal. Delta will invest in DCI one way or another, the question is whether or not Delta pilots will benefit from that investment.

Is that what you're looking for?

whitt767

Oh, I've been keeping up. Put on your logic hat... It makes no sense to negotiate an aircraft lease swap then suddenly dump the pilots on the receiver (after telling everybody you weren't). Way too much risk in that one. Delta doesn't want the pilots, do they? Nope.

Bucking Bar

That resonates! Yes

Edited my post out of appreciation for yours.

Could you elaborate on how the 717 works for Delta when it does not work for Southwest ?

How great a threat should / would the C Series be to our 717 fleet ?

scambo1

My logic hat is on.

I think it would be cheaper for DAL to get the planes with the pilots.

If you can provide an official defensible source that has officially stated that the 717 pilots are not coming with the planes, I'm all ears.

whitt767

Seriously? Cheaper with the pilots? How so?

Carl Spackler

Though your static and detached logic is accurate, it doesn't tell the story at all. The point is that all savings due to OUR CONTRACT should be apportioned in some way to the pilots. The ONLY thing that matters (if you're behaving like a union) is what the cost will be to the company. If they've found a way to give us a few increases that cost them nothing overall, that's good for them...but it's awful and weak if that's ALL we accept. That by definition means we left money on the table because not even management expects us to sign off on something cost neutral to them. This is exactlly what the DTW Chairman is saying and it is not arguable.

Our TA is COST NEUTRAL to Delta Air Lines.

Carl

georgetg

Nothing. Brian Bedford is planning on doing just that.
Even better, the TA gives Republic a specific exemption to perform large jet flying by exempting Chautaqua and Shuttle America (wholly owned subsidiaries of Republic) to be exempt from the improved holding company language:
Summary:

• Our PWA has language to prohibit a DCI carrier to fly large jets.
• Republic aquires Frontier and operates A320s, orders the C-Series.
• Many Delta pilot call their reps and say it violates the PWA.
• The DALPA lawyer responds that the PWA language isn't enforceable as written.
• My rep promises to make sure the next contract is better.
• New language in TA prohibits operations like Republic from operating larger jets.
• Exemption added to TA specifically permits Republic (Chautaqua, Shuttle America) to operate large jets contrary to news language.

Really? This alone in context of BBs plans should be a NO vote!

Cheers
George