Hehehehehehehe, classic

You stay strong brother

When you nudge Lee and whisper his call sign to wake him up tomorrow morning

Don't forget to remind him to trim Johns 'ALPA Stache'

Hero

Because they could furlough at will without worrying about the cost of retraining everyone at CZ and then again when they have to recall. CZ, in my opinion, was a major reason many Delta pilots were not furloughed.

One of the guys responsible for the great Scope NWA brought to the table wants to be in OUR next Negotiating Committee. He still thinks he did a great job back then. Contact your reps to make sure he and others responsible for the direct outsourcing of mainline jobs NEVER ever hold ALPA office again.

Prof,

Agree 100%. We are in a service industry - the fact that we actually need to declare 2010 the "Year of the customer" is troubling. What happens in 2011 we go back to being the airline that will keep cutting service until our customers revolt?

Whoever thought up this year of the customer BS should be forced to non rev aroung the system 5 days a week for a couple of months - in coach and on DCI.

I wonder what wonderful name he would have for 2010 after that? {insert witty response here :)}

Scoop

Agreed. We know that eventually we will be electing a MEC Chairman. How about a resolution?

WHEREAS: The term "mainline flying" has been undefined and a wide variety of different opinions exist on the proper role of scope to provide job security and career advancement.

WHEREAS: Delta pilots are concerned about further outsourcing of their jobs.

WHEREAS: Negotiations are often completed before the membership is even aware that negotiations are taking place.

WHEREAS: Outsourcing diminishes the power of our Association to enjoy exclusivity over Delta flying and has the potential to harm negotiations in the future.

WHEREAS: Communication prior to negotiation helps build consensus, support and unity among Delta pilots.

That our Local Executive Council be advised prior to entering into scope negotiations, scope grievance resolutions, or side letters of agreement involving scope and job security provisions of our Pilot Working Agreement, and

That "Negotiator's Notepad" or similar communication be provided to the pilots of Council XX, and

That pilots be provided the opportunity to provide feedback to our LEC, and

The pilots of Council XX request that their LEC ask for the written opinion of any prospective Candidates for Master Chairman as to their specific definition of "mainline flying" , and

The LEC communicate the Candidate's response to this question to the membership in sufficient time for pilots to provide feedback to their Representatives, and

That our LEC consider 76 seat flying and current outsourcing restrictions a minimum requirement for their vote.

That our LEC request of our MEC that opportunities to preserve ALPA's exclusivity over bargaining and preservation of Delta pilots' employment status be given high priority, and

That our LEC request of our MEC research into alternative ownership structures and contract construction which would provide Delta pilot employment to be maintained as "temporary duty" even if that pilot were to be redeployed on a subcontractor's Certificate.


(That's probably two, or three, resolutions. But just tossing it out there for feedback. Lets turn the lights on so we can see what's coming. )

I will say this again. I want the flying here. It is not JUST the economics if the jets. (Our cost of doing it) It is the cost to the pilot group of buying it back.

Forget the economics of flying the darn thing, look at the cost to buy it back. What are you, and the other 12000+ pilots willing to wait four more years on to regain that flying. (Sounds a lot like what are you willing to give up?, I know)
Point is that it was taken in 1113C and our wages were taken too. A lot was taken. We all know or should know that the cost to buy it back will cost more that we got to sell it. (we can argue what we sold or if it was taken, in the end that does not matter)

I agree with Bar that we do not need to see or accept scope as a bargaining chip. We actually have to totally stop that practice. It is not for sale. Enough is enough. We all feel that way. What I was identifying in the ROAR article was one statement. It was the statement that the cost would more than likely be too much for this group to swallow.

So Bar? Study it? Lets study it! Publish the findings. I agree with that. Lets do and EA. Let fight for scope. I am 100% in that side of the court. Fight for protections throughout the list. High, low and middle. Every area needs attention. Inclusive Small jets scope. Define DAL pilot flying. Lets do all of it.
As I have said, restoration imo is a two cba offensive. We have talked about this ad nausem.

Scope is the single biggest issue that most do not understand. That in the end is why the one point I have agreed with in the ROAR is fact. I do not know why that is so hard to see. We have post after post on here stating that so and so flew with LCA this and CA that that was willing to sell scope for pay, or did not want to deal with recapturing scope to raise their pay more. Those statements further solidify my statement that what was written in that article will hold true. Why? Because everyone in good standing has a vote, and those votes combined together make up or position. No more no less.

Bar,
A great way to change the opinions and minds of our fellow pilots is to provide them with information to change their minds. To do that we need this type of transparency. Until then my statement stands.

Yes, I know the guy that you are talking about. I beleive he is the Godfather of Newco. :eek:

BTW Bar, I forcefully disagree as I stated 10 posts ago that the flying below my seniority is worthless to the group. That is a load of crap. It is a easy way out, but as I have stated education of the masses changes that. It is that simple.

A resolution like yours that forces the LEC then MEC to confer with its pilots is one way to make the group engaged by mandate.

As much as I'd like to have DCI airplanes at mainline Delta, I can't see it happening - here's why:

Cost.

While some of the pilot group would like to have the EMB-175s, CRJ-900, CRJ-700, the 50 seater, etc at mainline, the pay rates we would have to accept are far too low. I'm not just talking about the rates that other airlines are currently flying them at.

I'm talking, really low rates to pay for all the other costs that Delta would have to absorb. The DCI airplanes right now are maintained by mechanics being are probably paid less than they are at Delta. The planes are dispatched using dispatchers who are paid less than Delta dispatchers. Cleaned by people making less than Delta cleaners (maybe, they might use the same people). The Flight attendants make less than Delta flight attendants. The gate agents are paid less than Delta gate agents.

Also, each of those employee groups are paid the same whether they are working on a CRJ50 or a CRJ-900 (say, at Pinnacle which fly both I think). Pilots get paid more for a bigger plane - other employee groups don't.

So - let us say Delta said, "let brings over the CRJ-900 to mainline". Pilots will be paid the existing rate that we're paying at Pinnacle. We'd ***** and moan, but in the end, we'd understand that it's the competitive rate. Now other employee groups don't get paid more or less for different sized airplanes. The cost of repairing the CRJ-900 would be at mainline Delta costs - not DCI costs. Same for dispatchers, cleaners, and flight attendants.

So - the cost of dispatching, maintaining, serving drinks, etc on the former DCI plane go up, but the pilot cost would be the same. Well - unless the pilot group can convince the other labor groups to be paid less for flying the CRJ-900, the pilots are going to have to take the cost hit for the airplane to remain profitable.

Who else would take the hit? Management isn't going to operate the plane at a loss just to have more pilots on the payroll. Honestly, people aren't going to pay more to fly a CRJ-900 because it's operated by Delta employees vs DCI employees so we can't raise revenue. Most pax don't even know how the whole code-share system works anyway. The other labor groups aren't going to switch to being paid less to work on a CRJ-900 because it's not in the way their pay system is designed.

So - we might have to work for much less than what current DCI pilots are paid if we want the airplanes at mainline, in order for these sized airplanes to be profitable.

This is what I feel ALPA is saying when they say, "you don't want to work for the pay rates that will bring the plane to mainline."