![]() |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836657)
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? If we opt to play ball defend the provisions of the flow, and PWA, we would be defending the contractual language that would invoke the trigger, not to allow a concession to keep the flow. Doing nothing allowing the flow to be canceled and then getting money for the job protection is something totally different. |
Our concern is not that most DAL pilots don't understand the importance of Scope. Our concern is that LM will sell it (again) and explain to us why he had to do it ... after the fact. That's my biggest concern.
Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 836660)
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.
The very unfortunate nature of the place our "economic outsourcing" has brought us to is that scope violations create bargaining capital. The first question we see is "what can we get for that?" Management has learned that they can violate scope and all ALPA is going to do is come with it's hat in it's hand asking for a little something something. What ALPA and management both miss is how much money is actually at stake by transferring operations and outsourcing. When you look at the total cost of these contracts we are sending tens of billions of dollars out the door to fund the operations and profits of airlines which do not share our goals. |
Yep, my guess is the initial cost of the trigger is at least 50% of our annual pilot cost. (Assuming those jets get parked)
|
You know what, I want the flow but I want it done right. I like that CPZ pilots were hired by NWA pilots from day 1. I think 76 seaters are at worst replacement jets and at best still taking up one more gate, one more slot and one more 3 mile seperation. And if they want them to remain at DCI then know that if they replace a mainline jet and a mainline pilot then the mainline pilot gets to fly for it, on their dime.
If someone wants the flow cancelled then I'm willing to have people I pay and represent me to hear out the alternatives. But to me the best alternative for everyone involved is the elimination of DCI. The worst alternative is to get something good (including pay bumps) that we could later lose in exchange for something we don't want but will never lose. i.e. Don't sell our scope, sell their jets. --- As to the thought of staple and add DCI into mainline, just know that overnight you'd have just about 0 50-seaters left and thousands on furlough. They'd have a number, but they'd be on furlough. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 836665)
Our concern is not that most DAL pilots don't understand the importance of Scope. Our concern is that LM will sell it (again) and explain to us why he had to do it ... after the fact.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 836665)
Our concern is not that most DAL pilots don't understand the importance of Scope. Our concern is that LM will sell it (again) and explain to us why he had to do it ... after the fact. That's my biggest concern.
Carl The question then becomes, what is our price? I just hope the MEC allows time for open debate and line pilot input. This is huge. I DO NOT want to wake up on Tuesday and read in the morning paper that my MEC has signed a new LOA. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836689)
I think the MEC almost has to "sell it" in this case. Let's face reality. Even though they have the power, they are not going to force management to immediately park 68 jets.
The question then becomes, what is our price? I just hope the MEC allows time for open debate and line pilot input. This is huge. I DO NOT want to wake up on Tuesday and read in the morning paper that my MEC has signed a new LOA. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836689)
I just hope the MEC allows time for open debate and line pilot input.
This is huge. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836689)
I think the MEC almost has to "sell it" in this case. Let's face reality. Even though they have the power, they are not going to force management to immediately park 68 jets.
The question then becomes, what is our price? I just hope the MEC allows time for open debate and line pilot input. This is huge. I DO NOT want to wake up on Tuesday and read in the morning paper that my MEC has signed a new LOA. If management has done something that requires the parking of 68 jets or us flying those 68 jets, then what is there to negotiate? Nothing! They will come screaming and crying, and there is only one response to that. We've made plenty of negotiationg screwups over the years and they have shown zero pity to us. Why would you even remotely suggest that we do similar? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands