Klondike,

That is in section 13 of the contract "Leaves of Absence", call your chief pilot or the duty pilot if after hours and they will get you off the trip. You will be paid up to 4 days of missed work per the contract. Delta is very good about getting people home during these times.

Sorry for your loss

 

Search for "delta MEC comm". that worked for me.

 

Thanks 88FO. I did not have time to look it up. I appreciate you doing that for me.

 

Well, the percentage of flying we do should temporarily improve in the near term as we go forward as a result of economic and regulatory factors. What makes it permanent is scope. Changes to the scope clause will cost less negotiating capital when it is less desirable to the company. I'm not saying burn all the capital in CY15, but there will be some cheaper opportunities in the future to shore it up. Buy low and sell high. It's easy.

 

Gloopy,

My point is not "what" we negotiated into the contract but that we "did" negotiate and it cost us some leverage in contract 2012. Many on here argued, very legitimately, that the 50 seat RJ's and outsourcing were/are dying a slow death and going to go away anyway so why waste leverage. I have changed my mind (and I think Ts has too) and agree with this side of the argument now. I think I'm in a book by Joseph Heller!

As for your second paragraph, I think that ship has sailed. They can't get the pilots to staff their experiment now and there is no way in H E double hockey sticks that Dalpa will give them relief from our current scope clause.

Denny

 

I don't think there is anything "temporary" about it. I think it's a result of the company getting the 717's and getting rid of the 50 seaters. Whether you think Delta would have gotten these with or without C2012, it's a moot point. We are getting them and the ratio of flying is definitely swinging in mainline's favor, contractually. Yes, economics has something to do with it, management has finally realized the economics of the RJ are not what they wish for so they are upgauging. As far as regulatory factors, I think the 1500 hour rule is HUGE! It looks like they cannot, or soon will not, be able to staff DCI properly. (On a side note, maybe this is why they haven't purchased all the new 76 seaters they can...) The only "temporary" factor I see is possibly the economic one and, as a whole, I don't think the economy is going gangbusters anyway.

You are absolutely right, what makes scope changes permanent are changes to the scope clause... It's just now the shoe is on the other foot so to speak. In Contract 2012 some were willing to use some negotiating capital to limit RJ scope and others were not. It just seems to me that many of us have changed our viewpoints (on both sides). I'm now of the opinion we should negotiate more restrictive scope, just not use any negotiating capital to do so. (As many on this forum expressed in the C2012 discussions.)

Denny

 

I wonder if management is willing to modify Section 1 to eliminate the LAX carveout wrt to Alaska and the SEA not being a hub. If not then a lot of this is just a show.

 

Should a union represent members differently, to a different standard?

Should a union rpresent pilots within the same airline to a different standard?

Should a union sell one member's job to benefit another member?

Should a union use one member's work to pay another member?

 

Denny;
The MEC directs the negotiating committee for section 6 using our secret surveys. This is just my viewpoint, but as to highlight number 2, scope is more than just RJs, DALPA closed the loophole that RAH was violating, 3 year JV lookback was added, bigger RJs were allowed, and the other scope changes were (contractually) losses (IMO) regardless of the decrease in hulls/RJ jobs. Its what's on paper that counts. What we have on paper has continuously devolved.

Bullet 3, Again, scope is more than RJs, The JV is out of whack, Virgin Atlantic is still fuzzy, and the language still allows outsourcing domestically (AK and RJs). Regardless, I am not convinced that the MEC is interested in solidifying section 1 except as the company requests.

Bullet 1, the economy factor is definitely a big issue. The Eurozone is certainly destabilized with growing factions desiring to return to a debt reset with re-nationalized currency, Japan is still in the doldrums, Russia is re-USSR-ing, and Chinese growth has crested the wave. The US is stagnant, but money is cheap, I still see the possibility of a second recession about a year out...

You are right that at this point C12 is moot. If the economy re-tanks, we do (at least) have flowback protections in the contract (practically speaking, that's almost as good as having 76 seaters on the property). However, using negotiating capital to solidify section 1 is the best use of said capital IMO. I don't think it would take too much negotiating to really have some section 1 wins in the current environment.

I am FOR solidifying the language in section 1 and using some capital to do it.

 

Okay Bar, I'm stupid (my words) What's your point? What does any of that have to do with what I wrote? You can ask those same questions of any one who feels the opposite of what I do.

Denny