Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Bucking I understand what your saying but I can guarantee the 100 seat discussion would come. My questions are these.
1) once the flying is outsourced is it considered Alaska's mainline flying to negotiate away?
2) our own Dalpa has said that you always listen and negotiate. I would hope before the words ever got out of managements mouth they would stop them before the sentence is finished. I however have my doubts.
1) once the flying is outsourced is it considered Alaska's mainline flying to negotiate away?
2) our own Dalpa has said that you always listen and negotiate. I would hope before the words ever got out of managements mouth they would stop them before the sentence is finished. I however have my doubts.
In contrast Delta scope says that Delta pilots do all Delta Company flying, with some exceptions.
Alaska's scope is exclusive. It takes part of the Company's operations and says Alaska pilots must fly their current 737 fleet.
Delta's scope is inclusive. Delta pilots do all Company flying and we permit the Company to some flying without us.
ALPA's attorney is trying to tell our MEC that Delta's permitted flying actually belongs to someone else. Our MEC does not necessarily buy that. Some members are asking for further inquiry, but to the best of my knowledge we have no formal agenda item going forward to dispute the opinion of ALPA's counsel.
In as much as there is already a discrepancy between the Delta PWA and advice coming from ALPA National which could undermine Delta pilots in a merger, I'd dare say that an Alaska merger is a very similar powder keg to what resulted in US Air leaving the union.
I do not know why Lee Moak is playing with this kind of fire. Maybe they (ALPA senior leadership) just has not thought out this redefinition of "Company Flying" out. Most Delta Status Reps know in their gut something is wrong, but they have a hard time really understanding the issue like pilots who have come from a background of being the non preferred members of ALPA. A merger where ALPA walks in and tries to put our contract on the same level of Alaska's would make my point in a very tangible way that perhaps would even turn our own MEC into a group of reborn trade unionists.
There is a distinction which is clearly written into our contract and which is very clearly lacking in the Alaska agreement.
Strategically, our Status Reps should bother to learn and understand what is at play here. Strategically we need to be strengthening the concept of "Company flying" that Delta pilots perform.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 06-30-2013 at 01:00 PM.
Can you post what the hire dates are of the pilots at the top, 25%, 50%, 75%, and bottom of your seniority list? Or, whatever you can come up with, more or less?
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Alaska's scope is specific to their current 737's, nothing else. They have no right to anything else Alaska Air Group does.
In contrast Delta scope says that Delta pilots do all Delta Company flying, with some exceptions.
Alaska's scope is exclusive. It takes part of the Company's operations and says Alaska pilots must fly their current 737 fleet.
Delta's scope is inclusive. Delta pilots do all Company flying and we permit the Company to some flying without us.
ALPA's attorney is trying to tell our MEC that Delta's permitted flying actually belongs to someone else. Our MEC does not necessarily buy that. Some members are asking for further inquiry, but to the best of my knowledge we have no formal agenda item going forward to dispute the opinion of ALPA's counsel.
In as much as there is already a discrepancy between the Delta PWA and advice coming from ALPA National which could undermine Delta pilots in a merger, I'd dare say that an Alaska merger is a very similar powder keg to what resulted in US Air leaving the union.
I do not know why Lee Moak is playing with this kind of fire. Maybe they (ALPA senior leadership) just has not thought out this redefinition of "Company Flying" out. Most Delta Status Reps know in their gut something is wrong, but they have a hard time really understanding the issue like pilots who have come from a background of being the non preferred members of ALPA. A merger where ALPA walks in and tries to put our contract on the same level of Alaska's would make my point in a very tangible way that perhaps would even turn our own MEC into a group of reborn trade unionists.
There is a distinction which is clearly written into our contract and which is very clearly lacking in the Alaska agreement.
Strategically, our Status Reps should bother to learn and understand what is at play here. Strategically we need to be strengthening the concept of "Company flying" that Delta pilots perform.
In contrast Delta scope says that Delta pilots do all Delta Company flying, with some exceptions.
Alaska's scope is exclusive. It takes part of the Company's operations and says Alaska pilots must fly their current 737 fleet.
Delta's scope is inclusive. Delta pilots do all Company flying and we permit the Company to some flying without us.
ALPA's attorney is trying to tell our MEC that Delta's permitted flying actually belongs to someone else. Our MEC does not necessarily buy that. Some members are asking for further inquiry, but to the best of my knowledge we have no formal agenda item going forward to dispute the opinion of ALPA's counsel.
In as much as there is already a discrepancy between the Delta PWA and advice coming from ALPA National which could undermine Delta pilots in a merger, I'd dare say that an Alaska merger is a very similar powder keg to what resulted in US Air leaving the union.
I do not know why Lee Moak is playing with this kind of fire. Maybe they (ALPA senior leadership) just has not thought out this redefinition of "Company Flying" out. Most Delta Status Reps know in their gut something is wrong, but they have a hard time really understanding the issue like pilots who have come from a background of being the non preferred members of ALPA. A merger where ALPA walks in and tries to put our contract on the same level of Alaska's would make my point in a very tangible way that perhaps would even turn our own MEC into a group of reborn trade unionists.
There is a distinction which is clearly written into our contract and which is very clearly lacking in the Alaska agreement.
Strategically, our Status Reps should bother to learn and understand what is at play here. Strategically we need to be strengthening the concept of "Company flying" that Delta pilots perform.
1) The MEC does have a study item related to the above concern
2) The request for this study indicates the MEC as a body is engaged
Reason for correction: my passion for "Delta flying" got the best of me and I mistakenly wrote something that could be a considered a swipe at our Reps. Our Reps are the good guys.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0

If any ALK pilots are interested anyone hired in 2008 at DAL is at 98% and holding.

Someone mentioned the bottom 2,000 guys at DAL would be screwed in a merger scenario with ALK. Not really sure what to make of that.
Unless drastic cuts and aircraft reductions would occur post-merger, would the bottom 2,000 dal guys really be screwed? I guess it depends on each pilot's definition of screwed.
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 54
From: 765A
no matter how the list is merged, a bunch of AK pilots will end up senior to our bottom 2000. The impact will not be right away, but down the road when DL pilots were expecting to be a 777 captain, there will certainly be a big impact absent a fence. And I don't see there being fences long enough to protect the bottom 2000.
Last edited by johnso29; 06-30-2013 at 07:27 PM.
no matter how the list is merged, a bunch of AK pilots will end up senior to our bottom 2000. The impact will not be right away, but down the road when DL pilots were expecting to be a 777 captain, there will certainly be a big impact absent a fence. And I don't see there being fences long enough to protect the bottom 2000.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,263
Likes: 105
From: DAL 330
I believe 20 years is correct. I think it was also for the planes on property at point in time. If there were a merger today and Delta ordered more 777, 747, A330's, or some A350's for example (ie new category or category is grown bigger) then the fences would not apply and Alaska guys could bid those aircraft. If I am not mistaken some Republic MD-80 Captains were able to move to 747 Captain in this way.
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
As,
Can you post what the hire dates are of the pilots at the top, 25%, 50%, 75%, and bottom of your seniority list? Or, whatever you can come up with, more or less?
Top 25%=1979-1992
Next 25%=1991-1998
Next 25%=1999-2002
Bottom 25%=2002-2013
Age 65 retirements over the next 10 years:
2013-11
2014-24
2015-22
2016-65
2017-38
2018-41
2019-49
2020-55
2021-54
2022-55
As of today pilots over 60 YOA:
154
Total on property:
1,472
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
no matter how the list is merged, a bunch of AK pilots will end up senior to our bottom 2000. The impact will not be right away, but down the road when DL pilots were expecting to be a 777 captain, there will certainly be a big impact absent a fence. And I don't see there being fences long enough to protect the bottom 2000.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post





