forgot to bid

Ooooooooh.

See if the powers that be give this up in exchange for a promise from the company that "we'll try really really hard not to furlough, it will be our last resort" clause.

RockyBoy

aaaaahhhhhhhhh!

forgot to bid

This is starting to sound like one of those porno Vermont Teddy Bear commercials.

johnso29

I agree. It may be time to start talking to the UsAir West boys. ALPA is cleary losing touch with Mainline pilots.

acl65pilot

The issue is to make sure that no more of our Scope or LOA's are farmed out to avoid issues with deals ALPA national has made.

Superpilot92

I agree!!! Alpa can't represent mainline and the regionals at the same unless we're on the same list and that doesn't seem to be likely. An internal union may be the better option, especially with 12000+ pilots.

Superpilot92

We'll alpa is walking a fine line because without our 12000 pilots alpa would be in bad shape. They had better weigh their options. DPA is the only real way to effectively represent the delta pilots best interests.

chuck h

How about some highlights, cuz I have no idea what your all talking about?

sailingfun

The current scope clause allows Delta 255 larger RJ's. Of that number 120 could have more then 70 seats up to 76 seats. The 120 number was adjustable via a formula for mainline fleet size. Last year the company ordered additional RJ's and felt they were allowed 156 of those with 76 seats based on mainline fleet size. That number was correct based on fleet size. The contract also says that once a number is established by fleet size it can't be reduced. The new RJ's started arriving about the same time Delta decided to store some A320's and 757's that needed major overhauls. Dalpa felt the formula numbers should be based on the fleet size when the new RJ's go into service. The company felt it should be based on when the aircraft were ordered. The contractual language was poorly written and does not say which is correct. The disagreement has no effect on the total number of large RJ's. It only effects how many above the 120 baseline can have 76 seats. Dalpa felt that number should have been 127. The company 156.
We filed a grievance in Oct. The grievance committee appointed by the MEC negotiated a settlement on 6 Feb. The settlement allowed the company to keep the current airframes with 76 seats. In exchange the company agreed that going forward they would use Dalpa's numbers and we got some limited furlough protection for new hires.
Things to keep in mind. Had we won the arbitration it is likely that by the time a ruling was issued or within months of a ruling the company would have been back in compliance and allowed the seats anyway.
Had we lost the arbitration the company would have been allowed more seats forever. The upside to DALPA in arbitration was very limited and time sensitive. The downside was larger and permanent. The agreement does not allow the company any additional larger RJ's. It only allows them 6 more seats in the disputed airframes.

DeadHead

Not being an expert in these matters, what exactly does "Limited Furlough Protection" mean. I'm guessing that agreement comes with the old "Force Majeure"caveat, in which cases the whole agreement is meaningless.

Personally, if I am furloughed, knowing that management "Tried" it's best to not furlough would not mean much to us hew hires on the street.

Secondly, why would they renegotiate another Furlough Protection Clause when they already have a Furlough Protection Clause in the LOA 19 agreement prior to merger.

Not trying to sound negative, but why is ALPA continuously negotiating for repeated Furlough Protection, when in my opinion, the clause/guarantee is meaningless since the economy being on it's back will almost definitely allow the "Force Majeure" stipulation to be played out by management?

Again, I'm sure I'm probably missing something, but that how I see it thus far.