Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Scoop,

Yours is a solid idea. But, you have to look at history. Have we enforced scope, or traded it?

Trading one pilot's job to benefit other pilots is an ugly business for a union to be in, so it is not something done in the light of day. But, when I have brought forward multiple violations of our scope the ONLY actionable response I've EVER received is, "what kind of bargaining leverage does that give us?"

Now when faced with a Constitutional issue on scope (who bargains with Delta management) the Delta MEC prefers to redefine the terms to avoid a conflict over what is "Delta flying."

IMHO, we Delta pilots have great jobs. In large part we are happy with our Company and to some extent by extension, our representation. We are peace loving pacifists and we are represented as such. Until the politics change to the extent that the majority of pilots are willing to recall those who don't desire a fight ... we are wasting our time even thinking about putting non compliance penalties in the contract. (IMHO, our Reps might be right, if they fought and lost they might be unpopular and popularity is the basis for election ... that's just reality)

While few politicians would say they desire non compliance, almost all are willing to trade in it.

I have suggested a requirement that the Company be forced to staff for our share of flying, regardless of whether we do it. If that model is accepted, it would give us the benefit of scope compliance without as great a potential for extended non compliance and the trading that typically resolves the so called problem of noncompliance.

P.S. I still wonder if Contract 2000 was written with expected non compliance. The RJ triggers were exceeded on management's schedule, even though the aircraft orders were negotiated BEFORE C2K negotiations were complete.

Originally Posted by Scoop

Bar,

You may have misread my last sentence - I think we are in agreement. I said in my opinion DALPA has been "unimpressive" on most Scope related issues.

Scoop

Originally Posted by LivingTheDream

Ref sections 12 & 23 of the contract... everything relating to our schedules is seniority based.

Originally Posted by crewdawg52

I believe its white slips, swap w/ pot, yellow slips in order, seniority.

Originally Posted by Mike Hancho

Looking to move X days. Seniority is the answer I was hoping for. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Very good point.

... and they think folks on this board, like us, are terribly unreliable because of the same characteristics that make us willing to take the chance on entrepreneurship.

Come to think of it, I would wager those on this board (including the ALPA Reps that participate) are more likely than the general average to:

• Be small business owners, or manage business operations
• Have an education beyond the Bachelor's level
• Have experience outside of flight operations
• Have experience at more than two employers
• Have held the title of Vice President, President, or Director
• Either be an attorney, or have hired an attorney for other than family legal matters
• Be a source of employment for other persons
• Have other business interests that make flying at Delta a choice, or complementary income

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

yep. 4/8/3/3.

and let's not forget to factor in the loss of a piece of the profit sharing pie.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

And now with an increase in taxes: 4/6/1/1

Originally Posted by orvil

Thanks. Those are nice financial calculators.

Originally Posted by iaflyer

Oh, so you're saying we got a 2% pay raise in 2011 and 2012? Great, I forgot to add that to my pay rates from those years, I'll have go back and add that in.

My point is, that the 2% was a tax holiday for those two years, not an decrease in our payrates as of 1/1/13.