That sir, is a very logical question.

I don't know enough about this issue to offer an opinion one way or the other (I know.. since when has that stopped me before?), but I wonder if it would be better to set monetary penalties in the next one that snap a pay increase whenever the company is out of compliance... no 3 year lookback or anything like that.. but month to month, and a significant percentage, and/or stock. Let management show us the confidence in their plan.

Fair enough. I am looking at what they are doing from an investors' viewpoint.

Sailing,


Thanks for all the information on this subject. I admit my knowledge on this subject is limited and I defer to my more knowledgeable brethren (you and George) for info of this sort. My reps are pretty responsive and I totally trust them, but sometimes I get frustrated when we seem to make the same or very similar mistakes again and again.

Once again thanks for the informative discussion.

Scoop

Any Rooney is not buying that.

http://images.bidnessetc.com/content...6bd4e3c7c5.gif

Just saying

I'm puzzled how you can make that statement. It seems to me the agreement hasn't done anything at all. Air France/KLM does whatever they want and our management hasn't shown any inclination toward bringing the production balance back into compliance.

I understand your position. You are happy with whatever management wants. You think the current balance is just fine and we are doing a "fair" share of the flying but the fact remains that we aren't doing as much as the contract calls for.

The agreement is being violated. It hasn't "served" anybody. Management has just ignored it.

I think they are counting on DALPA to do the same thing they did with the Pacific. When management went out of contract compliance on the Narita flying, DALPA just sat down and erased the Narita limits from our contract and put in another of these wonderful "production balances". Which I'm sure will be enforced just as strictly as the AF/KLM balance.

And why shouldn't Anderson have confidence that DALPA will just re-write the scope section to allow whatever management wants to do? The union has done it over and over. We might as well stop kidding ourselves and just get rid of our scope clause. Or if we want it to be enforced maybe we should let the Endeavor MEC write it.

Worth repeating :)

LOL now there's some forum myth that AFKLA/AZ pulled down flying as much as us...

Even the head of our MEC at the time Tim O'Mally indicated Anderson was frustrated that the European partners weren't pulling back equally with Delta.
In the end the pulldown on the Transatlantic from previous levels was shouldered disproportionately by Delta pilots, that is a fact.


Here is a chart from a Delta investor presentation made by Ed and Richard on who made cuts and how much.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25953519/cuts.jpg

Sailing, you are a smart guy and know how to read a chart:

• Was the Delta planned growth on the left (grey) smaller than the AFKLM/AZ growth on the right?
• Was the Delta actual pulldown on the left (red) larger than the AFKLM/AZ pulldown on the right?

Tell me who was set to expand more than the other party and who ended up cutting back disproportionately?

So were the head of the MEC, Ed and Richard and those of us on the forum saying the Transatlantic flying pulldown was disproportionally shouldered by Delta pilots just making it up?.

Cheers
George

This is where I have a problem. Virtually everything in your post is inaccurate. You state AF/KLM are doing anything they want. In fact they worked with Delta management to insure the cutbacks were proportional and as the markets have rebounded we have picked up faster then they have. Show me your numbers and data!! Did you even look at the numbers?
Then you post about the NRT agreement. It's clear from your post you never even attempted to understand the issues in NRT. The only protection to the flying in NRT was a very limited codeshare agreement that was generating about 250,000 a year in revenue for Delta. Delta drops that agreement which amounted to less then pennies and we had absolutely zero protections for any flying in the Pacific. We took the one segment of our flying with no protection at all and generated a significant protections. We essentially went from zero to something. With what looks like a divorce coming with KAL that codeshare is going to sunset itself. Every pilot I know who took the time to read and understand the issue even the most anti ALPA guys agrees it was a good deal.
Going back to the discussion on the Atlantic I have posted every time that management has to make us whole on the flying they failed to add as per the Alitalia side letter. Again you don't even understand how they came into non compliance and could not even be bothered with a few mouse clicks to read the actual numbers before attacking me.
I often make mistakes and some items can be difficult for me to understand. I do however make a effort to get the best data I can and as often happens when I don't understand what I am seeing I make a call or two to people smarter then me to try and understand.
I wish you would do the same and limit your personal attacks.

George, that was a plan for one winter only. Go back and look up the actual numbers. Plans are fine. I will stick with what actually happened. Give SM a call at the union. He is the guru on this or you can look at the posted numbers.

Doesn't matter what side of the argument your on. It's a contract violation. Now what are we as a pilot group going to do about it?