Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1349578)

Agreed. The previous system was broken and needed to be fixed. I have always been in favor of fair and adequate protections for displaced recovery for any reason.

But I do not see an inalienable entitlement to be completely released with full pay, no obligation, and then be able to double dip like that. That is a disproportionate windfall for a select few. For most who will only come across it here and there, that's one thing. But for the buddy bidders who will basically get the year off with full pay and double dipping at will privlidges, all for being poor, abused "victim"s of the very thing they bid for, that is rediculous.

But when things really pick up, there will be very few pairings with LCA's available for the fluke bottom lineholder. The word isn't even fully out on this potential scam yet. I know a guy in that bubble that just now figured it out and turned it into over half a months pay for one leg.

Hoping for a lawyer-ball technicality to let you double or triple dip here and there while we have so many other areas that need to be fixed is a poor negotiating stratedgy.

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom (Post 1349640)

Gloopy, I agree with you...

Moonshot's premise that "we all benefit" is simply not true. I realize there are more First Officers than Captains, but let's say 40% of the Delta pilot group are Captains. I don't believe they benefit one iota from this contractual loophole.

Several years ago I jumpseated on a 76 from ATL-SLC. The First Officer was boasting that the previous year his W-2 earnings were $260K and he had only worked X number of days all year. He explained that he would bid to fly with LCA and hope that his trips would drop due to IOE's. At that point he'd Greenslip, and because he was senior he'd get them - in spades.

That didn't seem "right" to me then and it still doesn't. I'd much rather spread the wealth around.

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom (Post 1349640)

Gloopy, I agree with you...

Moonshot's premise that "we all benefit" is simply not true. I realize there are more First Officers than Captains, but let's say 40% of the Delta pilot group are Captains. I don't believe they benefit one iota from this contractual loophole.

Several years ago I jumpseated on a 76 from ATL-SLC. The First Officer was boasting that the previous year his W-2 earnings were $260K and he had only worked X number of days all year. He explained that he would bid to fly with LCA and hope that his trips would drop due to IOE's. At that point he'd Greenslip, and because he was senior he'd get them - in spades.

That didn't seem "right" to me then and it still doesn't. I'd much rather spread the wealth around.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1349653)

Perhaps all they would have to do is change the wording, so that if you are displaced for an OE, you cannot pick up anything, WS or GS, during the time you would have been on your original trip.

I agree that if you are displaced for an OE, you should NOT have to then be saddled with some POS 'recovery' trip, but since you are already being paid to stay home, why should you also be able to pick up a GS on those days? Sounds like tripple pay.

And while we're fixing stuff, how about if the LCA's had to buy Capt. trips instead of bidding a line? Then both the original Capt. and the F/O stay home and get paid!

Originally Posted by ilinipilot (Post 1349668)

Arent greenslips assigned in seniorty order and after your first you are put at the back of the line? So the 767 guy was not taking someone elses GS he was just lucky because he had the time off that matched with the GS request. Is this correct or am I wrong thanks.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1349488)

As I and many others stated before the TA vote, the TA was cost neutral to Delta. We didn't make that up, we were simply posting Richard and Ed's quotes to various financial media. So it's not a question of making sense to you or not, it's simply quoting our executive leadership.

Now, why was/is this an important question? It's important because people like alfaromeo and others within the MEC administration vehemently denied any characterization of the TA as cost neutral to Delta...despite executive leadership stating the exact opposite. The MEC administration felt they had to try to kill the cost neutral description or risk being thought of as management stooges by the membership. It was this vehement attack against the cost neutral description that is the concern. Is that what an MEC should be doing during the membership decision phase of a TA vote? Shouldn't an MEC just put out the TA and let us decide? And shouldn't an MEC let the words of our executive leadership speak for themselves?

Carl