"The economics at that time did not allow Delta to operate the 76 seaters on mainline and make it work economically. (I hear the hissing and booing already, but those were the facts)"

Then I guess ALPA failed us then. If they wasted all that time negotiating for something we couldn't get and did not run the numbers ahead of time in all the years leading up to this fight...."gosh we just figured this out today in MSY after a presentation by the company"

Or is that really the case? What else could they say after making those promises and still get the required number of votes to pass a TA that gave away 76 seat flying? I also have heard DIRECTLY from someone who was on the 4th floor at the time that "the company played a shell game with the numbers" to make the case. Whether that is true or not, when asked "if WE could fly them profitably, would you change your vote or vote against the TA" you should have seen the deer in the headlight look.

IMO, the deal is that many on the MEC saw a greater return for the pilots via the claim and the note in return for SCOPE and "no deal."


Since it was so easy, and the term sheet so long, and we had no leverage, makes you wonder why the company didn't just ignore us and wipe away the whole contract?

The latest e-mail, (09-04,September 4, 2009, Contract Education Summaries) was particularly priceless.

I actually got a little chub opening the pdf file in hopes that I would find some meaningful information only to read 2 full pages describing what a Contract Education Summary was while never actually providing one.

Just like the majority favor an electronic logbook, the majority would much rather receive an e-mail. Short, easy to read and informative.

Exactly, but as stated in the election info, about 25% of e-mails are returned. Many people do not keep their e-mail up-to-date with the union. That is why we see week old information in our V-files.

I personally hate to see money wasted on the paper product, but we need to reach as many members as possible, so until we have people actually update their e-mail info, we are stuck.


I also agree that some of the code a phone info is repetitive. The reason that is on there, is because the one time it is not, someone will scream bloody murder that they did not know. Sad, but true.

You need to understand that a lot of that Scheduling info is not for the South guys. It is for our NWA brothers and sisters that are coming in to BP-5. They need the 411 on the way it works down here. If you saw that info for the first time in that PDF file you would be very happy to have it.

We shall see what comes of this Special Meeting. I know that National wanted a decision on CPS in October, so I would venture to guess that will be discussed as well.

Yes, you can. I do that all of the time. I will bid one X day before and after vacation. It seems to work well.

Also they prorate your days off. Off the top of my head you will get 16 days off in a 30 day month while on reserve with vacation.

Just to get a few facts out there. During the 1113 process the discussion of adding 6 seats to the 170/175 and total airframes was the last or near last item agreed on.. The company shared all their cost data both projected and real. (The airframe was already operating at DCI. It was allowed at DCI under the Malone administration.) While I understand the numbers favored the companies position they were not overwhelming so like the smaller equipment.
The entire discussion about number of seats I found somewhat strange. If we allow a airframe at DCI we should allow the company to fly it to make the most revenue and generate the most connecting passengers.
The HUGE mistake was ever allowing the airframe at DCI in the first place and that was not done under Moak. If you think a judge would have made them fly the aircraft around without those extra seats when we were in Chapter 11 then I have some investments I would love to sell you.

That's good analysis.

Do you see any way to recapture that Type Airframe? In your opinion can we distinguish between the E170 (& derivatives) and the CRJ (& derivatives) ?

Air Canada does. They have the Embraer product at mainline and CRJ (& derivatives) at Jazz.

I think I've asked this before (who can remember?), but would capturing the E170/175 and adjusting the scope number to remaining 76-seaters (CRJ9) be a feasible method of getting the flying back?

Edit: Oops, I answered Bar's question with the exact same question...

I believe at Lufthansa, their CRJ900s are flown by pilots under the Lufthansa mainline seniority list.