I'll agree with that, and don't fault anyone for being cautious wrt out scope enforcement. Paranoia may have been too strong a word, and I didn't mean it as an insult to hockey (even though it came across that way.) I just don't see us "caving" and feel like guys are already resigned to "DALPA is just gonna sell scope" as if its inevitable. None of the reps I've spoken with indicate anything other than an expectation of compliance with section 1. If the company is not in compliance they have said they will pursue a remedy via the grievance process. Not a single one has said they are willing to trade for $.

 

disregard.

 

Same thing I have been told when discussing it with the Reps around the system.

 

I read a letter from my union implying that even if we are out of scope compliance and under our contractually required share of flying, we are still doing our fair share. That is my union's opinion. My opinion is the the same as just about every other pilot here. Our fair share is what we negotiated. It is a worthless section if it is not enforced.

 

I like the idea, but I do see two downsides.

1) Someone junior swaps out with someone senior. Result is pilots in between the two move down a number in the category.

2) A pilot who sees someone junior to him get a swap to a category he wants feels like his seniority has been abrogated.

Solution: Have a base swap board. All requested swaps must stay up for 30 days to give all pilots a chance to bid. After a swap, for bidding purposes a pilot must use the junior of either his seniority or of the pilot's seniority he is swapping with until he can hold that category through the normal AE process.

This way, no other pilot is "harmed" and two pilots are happier. Although one problem would be the IT programming for bidding using a different seniority number.

 

Would the swap incur a seat lock? Could a Capt and FO swap?

 

I don't understand why bidding preferences in everyone's bid couldn't protect them from being "harmed". In my real world scenario there is a guy 4 people below me that was MD'd to LAX. I would have VD'd if I had known that I was going to lose 17% in the last bid, and perhaps that MD would want to come back to SLC.

I just don't understand why the system isn't sophisticated enough to reshuffle everyone's preferences when they do it every month with line bidding. At least on same equipment where there is no training event.

 

When did a rep ever say they would recommend selling more scope? Yet, it consistently happens, wouldn't you agree?

 

Nevermind.......

 

Regarding the Scope JV stuff.....This is what I wrote to my Rep, please write your reps and tell them how you feel about the JV compliance or lack of.

Dear Rep xyz,
I am writing you to express my opinion and concerns over the the JV out of compliance situation we are currently experiencing. It dismays me that one, there is a three year rolling window on this. Two, that there is no 'penalty' language in the contract to penalize the company until they come into compliance. And three that it appears that the company is making very little if any attempt to even get into compliance.

This is Delta Pilot Widebody Jobs.... Period. It is an affront to our union that the company is so far out of compliance and has very little respect for our contract and our UNION that they quite simply are ignoring us and our contract.

I do not want constructive engagement on this, I do not want a Letter of Agreement on this, quite simply I want the company to be in compliance. Until then, Grieve this issue and lets hold their feet to the fire. Our pilot group has given enough away on scope, and this is (or shortly will be) a clear violation of what little scope we have left in the contract.

Please Stand firm and take this issue to the wall.