I beleive that if we do nothing the trigger may be invoked if they actually do ANYTHING with the flow. That would mean no change to section one.

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

 

Yep and that is a scope sale.

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.

 

Dave Stevens gave away our Scope.

 

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.

 

I agree. So we are all left to wonder what they will do instead.

 

Not trying to call you out on this, but I read it a lot, and it doesn't make sense. What input do you need to give to your reps? That you think Scope is important? Do you trust your reps? I trust mine, and have been assured by them with every contact that they hold Scope above all else. They remind me that Scope givebacks were done under duress. I expect my reps to attend meetings, ask questions, listen to the other reps, and make good decisions. I expect the chairman to get my reps the information, keep them focused on the issue, and then do what they tell him to do. My reps are all out flying the line today, but they seem to have a good understanding of the gravity of this situation. If you want to make all the decisions, run for office. I'm sorry for the bluntness; I'm a little fried from a long crossing.

 

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?