Of course Johnso, we all want money, but not money on the back of the very protection that makes this PWA worth anything.

Simply, scope is not for sale.

I'm confused. (my natural state)

The consesnsus opinion now seems to be that the MEC should take a hard line on scope. Refuse any continuation of the flow-throughs and force management to park the 76 seaters?

I thought I was hearing some of the same guys say we need to continue the flow-through because it is "job protection"? It prevents furloughs.

You do realize you can't have both. Right?
The 76 seaters only go away if flow goes away.

My opinion is that they can keep the 76 seaters, but we have to keep the flow both UP and DOWN. If they choose to make it unavailable then 68 76 seaters go bye-bye. That's the contract they agreed to, and I want to hold them to it.

What I think they will try to do is get rid of the flow AND keep them. Bottom line is, that simply can not happen.

So you favor scrapping the flow-thru and parking those 76 seat jets?
That's what I would like, but make no mistake, it's gonna be a big hit for Delta. Serious financial pain in the short term.
Do you think the MEC has the guts to actually do it?

So you favor the status quo. Keep the flow and let the 76 seaters keep flying.

Isn't that a huge scope concession? We have a chance to park 68 large regional jets and you don't want to do it?

I want a PERMINANT CAP on SCOPE. Any future aircraft if carrying DAL passengers MUST be flown by DELTA pilots. No more jobs outsourced!!

WITHOUT SCOPE THE REST OF THE CONTRACT IS WORTHLESS!

Check it seemed to me that we were talking about a pay raise for agreeing to not invoke the trigger, and or canceling the downflow with the up flow. AKA, amending the PWA for monetary gains.

That's what I want at a minimum, for the company to honor the contract they signed and not try to weasel out of it. I'm not sure DALPA has the moxie to go for the jugular, but I'm all for it. If management doesn't want to get rid of them, then they can bring them to mainline.

Another thing I like to see is the BS part of the contract that states 'once the number of 76 seaters has been established it will not be reduced' be eliminated because everytime I read that I see red. It's nice to know that they can shrink the mainline fleet without shrinking the outsourced flying! Good move ALPA. :mad:

In rough numbers, it would cost the Company something like a Billion to park those airplanes. The MEC does not want them on the mainline property. The MEC does not want to seriously financially harm the Company just prior pecuniary negotiations.

Again, I expect another instance of an official "nothing to see here, move along ... " over what is really perceived as a pretty minor issue. Unless of course you are one of the 1,000 guys at the bottom who could be impacted. If we are hiring steady with only the most remote possibility of furloughs, then there will be nearly no political pressure to make a stink out of this.

Didn't we all know exactly how this would go down the minute we read about the Compass divestiture from our MEC? Really, anyone surprised that Compass got spun off and the flow is in question?

I want to say I applaud you for even being on this board. You obviously care about what's going on even though I don't agree with your 25 percent raise comments.

I want the contract followed. If Delta wants to end the flow, that's fine by me as long as the consequences of the contract happen. Every single item should have consequences. ALPA finally started using some common sense and decided to put in consequences if the company does not follow the contract. I wish the consequences were more severe, but it is what it is. We agreed to it so I can live with it. What I can't live with is altering the scope portion of the contract in the company's favor for a temporary raise.