Heyas,

I know that "Slowplay" is just some anonymous internet guy, BUT:

As a point of ALPA policy, it is generally frowned upon when MEC Officers, Committee members/chairmen and officers from other LECs comment on, campaign and/or otherwise tinker with elections at the LEC level.

While a MEC officer/committee chairman might be a member of said council, it would be extremely difficult to separate one's comments as a member of the MEC structure from that of a simple line pilot.

I'm not sayin' anything...I'm just sayin'...

Nu

80% was a number pulled out of thin air to illustrate my example.

You are absolutely correct in that depending on the metric used the percentage will change.
That's why its so important to define flying many different ways.
In the past we concentrated on airframes with the known results.

Just think about this:

- Every day the majority of Delta flights are actually operated by non-Delta pilots....

- One 777 going to ATL to DXB produces many times more than say 10 RJs going ATL to CSG all day long.

JVs produce profits for the company (a good thing, even for pilots ;-) but we have to make sure we're not reducing growth and advancement for Delta pilots.

Cheers
George

While I am an anonymous webboard pseudonym, I appreciate your comment and agree. Since you "suppose" that I may be affiliated in some way with ALPA, I'll edit my post to reflect the values that you and I agree upon.

Thanks!

ACL with the JFK & LGA situations, do we have room on our plate for JAL?

To facilitate your efforts, as have I.

Nu

Absolutely agree with you here. Mainline expansion with regional reduction will be to the benefit of all pilots. The problem has been that regional feeders have replaced decent work rules and compensation with empty promises. I'm pretty sure every single regional company out there has made that promise on the first day of indoc of a quick upgrade through rapid expansion to get to that mainline "dream job" one day. That promise cost the company nothing and doesn't even come close to becoming a piecemeal fragment of what is owed to those pilots.

I think mainline scope which limits both amount and size is probably the best way of keeping the majority of flying in house. I like your idea of percentages, with the metric in mind, as a way to supplement current scope limits. I do, however, worry that management will find a way to circumnavigate a "percentages agreement" which will nullify the ultimate goal of keeping DAL pilots in DAL aircraft. Management will always be better at finding a loopholes than pilots.

Personally I like the idea of 50 seaters, prop or jet, as the dividing line between regional and mainline feeds, but I think that will take some backpedaling from the direction management has gone over the past 10-15 years. I think ALPA National could have been a little move vocal or involved with scope negotiations instead of allowing each individual MEC barter it off as a bargaining chip to management.

I think Carl said it best a could of hundred posts ago, why do we feel as though we always need to give something up to gain something when negotiating time comes around. In my opinion, the hundreds of pilots that gave up almost everything to keep the company in business after 9/11 have given enough.

Yes, I edited out some of the spite. I am not that kind of person, and I want to see the details before I make a complete decision. I want this to be good for the company AND the pilots of Delta Air Lines!

I have read all of section one. Sections get amended, things are interpreted differently. Once again, I want to win for the Delta Pilots! Delta is going to be a major power house, I want the pilots to ride on the shirt tails. It is a small request given our cooperation.
I hope so too, and because this is uncharted waters, we need to get it right the first time like management. We need to think of everything. Solicit the group, listen to their fears, ask questions.


There is huge potential here for us. We should seize it. I love the fact that this would put a huge rift in OneWorld.

As for NWA. I disagree. There were other pieces of the puzzle, but there is information you are privy to. The company fears Open Skies and getting shut out of Haneda. If allowed from there to the US, it would totally undermine the NRT position. Hence IMO why we are doing this. The Japanese government wants a return on their investment in JAL, we offer better options than AMR. That is good, but as I stated, we the pilots and our union need to make sure we get quid pro quo, at a minimum.

IMHO, Yes, and due to the changing government in Japan, and the reality of open skies, the company needs to do this to protect its investment in the NRT hub!

Well.... LGA will still get built. The rats at JFK just got yet another stay of execution... for at least a thousand generations. :mad:

Slow, I think that all of the candidates are concerned the implications of this. I have talked to a few of them, and they all want to see the detail, but they want it to be a win for the pilots too!


I think that we can make this be a win for us!

As for the AF/KLM deal, there an upside for us. We and AF are the powerhouse's in that deal. It is the KLM guys and gals that are worried.

I am all for the company making banks full of money as long as they see the fact that we have been doing our jobs for them at greatly reduced wages and benefits to make sure that they could 1) save the company and 2) get to a place in time like today where they could be the biggest and the best.

A proportional return on that investment is not a request that is to large to fill.