Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-03-2010 | 07:21 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
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.
Simply, scope is not for sale.
07-03-2010 | 07:26 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
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.
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.
07-03-2010 | 07:32 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
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.
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.
07-03-2010 | 07:35 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
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?
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?
07-03-2010 | 07:41 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
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.
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.
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?
07-03-2010 | 07:48 PM
Underboob King
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Commander
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!
WITHOUT SCOPE THE REST OF THE CONTRACT IS WORTHLESS!
07-03-2010 | 07:48 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
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.
07-03-2010 | 07:48 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
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.
07-03-2010 | 07:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
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?
Last edited by Ad Lib; 07-03-2010 at 08:14 PM.
07-03-2010 | 07:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
