Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1652269)

I'm still a little bit in the fog as to the CDO incident. The mere fact that it was pulled begs the question as to why it was there in the first place and the language (and protections) not seen. I'm still trying to figure out those two things.

This kind of change to work rules and operations seemed to me to be as big as any contract TA would be. Whether it went to memory rat or not I think the language deserved time to review.

And that's what confuses me. I think for most who signed a DPA card it was more about DALPA having a conflict of interest or being self serving and secretive and that maybe there needed to be a change. But over the last year it's really died down as the DPA shot itself in the foot on occasion and then you had elections at DALPA, followed by a recall, followed by new people. I think for those of us who filled out a DPA card there is a willingness to give DALPA the benefit of the doubt moving forward.

So what I don't get is if DALPA wanted to finally rid itself of the DPA why go this route on this kind of TA at this time? Not publishing the language is secretive, publishing it is not secretive. And why didn't they understand there would be an uproar about CDOs even if some pilots really demanded it?

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1652472)

Yup, good to see some more 757 routes being added.
We also did cancel the planned 717/RJ Houston expansion due to lack of gates...

cancelled:

CXL HOU-DTW (3 daily were planned)
CXL HOU-LAX (5 daily were planned)
CXL HOU-LGA (g daily were planned)
CXL HOU-MSP (3 daily were planned)

we do keep the additional 6th daily HOU-ATL

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1652490)

Thanks.

I was talking to someone about it and they brought up a question, would these 7.30 trips have replaced 10.5 hour two days?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1652530)

The Delta MEC Policy Manual is available on the ALPA / DMEC web site and downloaded in your document library if you used the iPubs or Box. If you understand the system, things worked like they were supposed to. We do not routinely memrat agreements unless it is the result of Section 6 bargaining. Our MEC could, but most view the MEC as a representative democracy and reps expect to take responsibility for the job by casting their vote.

I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.

The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.

As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.

I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.

Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1652386)

Hmmm, flamebait. Ironic.

Which is why I didn't call because my guys would have felt obligated to call back. I wanted them to enjoy a few days peace.

Anyway, had a good conversation with my rep today. Here's a quick synopsis:

1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.

2. No mention of a pay no credit lookback between now and November.

3. MEC nearly equally split on need for MEMRAT. interesting that its a philosophical split and not a split along north/south.

4. Acknowledgement that given the volumes of MEC communication, pilots were not communicated with regarding what was being negotiated.

5. The logic as to how CDO's became part of 117 (fatigue regulations) negotiations was because CDO's are covered in FAR 117. This was the open door used by the scheduling subcommittee to insert them into our opening position.

6. Company considered CDO's to be zero cost. Yet when we returned to ask for removal of them, the company gave their removal from the already signed TA to cost $4 million. So the loss of one hour to the long call leash and other stuff was determined by the company to be required to make them whole for their new additional cost of 4 million to remove CDO's that were a zero cost item when negotiations began.

Lots more stuff but this is already too long. MEC still very divided philosophically between guys like the CVG chairman who openly stated: 'we don't need MEMRAT because pilots don't have the time or the knowledge capacity to understand this stuff. That's why they hire us' ... and guys who believe just the opposite. No changes to that seen anytime soon

Carl

Originally Posted by Hillbilly (Post 1652509)

This "special select subcommittee" to the scheduling committee intrigues me. There are very few subcommittees to the scheduling committee (PBS, RCC, ?). The FRMT is now under the safety umbrella and not scheduling. Did the rep mention what subcommittee it was?

Originally Posted by firstmob (Post 1652541)

I think you mean DAL not HOU.

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1652544)

While factually right about the MEC policy manual and Memrat, you have left out a key detail.

However, at one time not too long ago, the manual was changed. It had originally stated that any significant change to the contract, benefits, or work rules was to be Memrated.

That change was not made widely public to the members thus the confusion with the CDO abortion.

That is a change the baffles me as to why? Why change something that significant, particularly when trying to appear bottom up.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1652535)

Wayyy off topic here, but does anyone know what the American Airlines 777 Capt. pay rate is now, and next year?

A friend of a friend asked me, but I can't find it listed here on APC.

Anyone who knows for sure, please shoot me a PM. Thanks.