It is of not consequence if they are in production or not. The reps are committed to holding the line on sjs. Period. They literally dismiss the notion of a scope sale.
It is simple, ask the questions and if you do not like what they are saying, work to effect change.

Whats wrong with doing both? :)

Scoop

As an outsider it is disheartening that the discussion is revolving on trying to keep scope where it is currently at and not giving in on the 100 seater as opposed to tightening scope back to at least 50 seaters. Hopefully United can can pave the path to follow.

That's not the question. The question is: Will the reps follow the will of the represented? Or will the reps bow to a secret brief that just can't be shared with the rank and file? I have no doubt about the "process" and I know how it works. If you don't understand how a powerful national union and MEC chairman can smash the will of a well intentioned rep, then you simply ignore history.

O'Malley not mentioning outsourcing, even though it is so highly valued by our reps does not bode well. The pilots and our reps are going to have to fight the company, the MEC leadership and ALPA when it comes to oursourcing. How sick and dysfunctional is that!

Carl

You're right. I just wish it was the Delta pilots that pave the way on this issue. Instead, I'll be hoping to follow United's lead while fighting our own MEC and ALPA national.

Carl

I know. I've talked to my reps. :)

Carl;
I may be proven wrong, but I do not see the current makeup of the MEC Council buying anything. At best there is a slight majority for pragmatism on the minor issues, but on major ones like scope, I do not see the reps bowing that way whatsoever.

WRT to scope, I am thinking of the current reps, and I cannot think of one that would willfully sell scope. Not one.

Carl;

We may, we may not, who knows. They are fighting to keep a line they have too. CAL has a line they are fighting to keep. I am sure if we merged with SWA we would be fighting for their line too. There would be no fight if it was UAL and LCC that were merging. Keep that in mind. It is there because CAL has better scope than the rest of the majors.

As for us. We need to get scope in order, no doubt about that. I want what you want. A agreement in the PWA that states that there will be no new, renewed, extended or modified ASA, Code Shares, or JV's signed without our approval. Period.

We also need a block hr min, and a min percentage of Skyteam flying that all the skyteam carriers and Skyteam management sign on to.

I have no idea what the MEC or MEC Council (reps) will do. We need a survey to find our majority position first. Once that is known the reps will have the data to give direction the the MEC and the Neg Committee. I know what I will be putting down, and Carl, it is not COLA. Not by a country mile. I do not just want a leading contract, I want a precedent setting contract.

As I have said, I want to see what UCAL, AMR and LCC (grievance) do prior to us opening before we solidify a position, but one thing is for certain, there is great work to be done. With where the industry is, much of this can be done quickly. Some not so much, and what we do with that part depends on the resolve and position of this pilot group. Same as it has always been.

I know I am ready to be pleasantly surprised by our position.

Ok, great, they can say this and say that, but why does O'Malley's letter say nothing about scope? I mean, there's isn't a sentence about it. I know you said you're about the action, not the words, but the problem is that in the past, LOA's have come out of the MEC that NO ONE had any input on, and they were presented as a Fait Accompli.

The 76 seat settlement is a prime example of this - I bet that if the membership was asked, or even a sampling of the membership was taken, DALPA would of fought for it. But, because they didn't ask, they made their own decision. I know that's what they are chosen to do, and they had their reasons but making decisions about stuff like without any input gives the MEC a bad name.

I think we are worried that we'll get a contract without better scope protection. Then, when people complain, the response would be, "oh, we didn't think it was important" because people think the MEC and the Neg committee "know what we want".

I think I understand the JV - through reading the PWA and discussions on here. Air France's 380 were a bad example because of the JV. JVs are good for the company, but if that's the case, why can't we get some of those $$$? Second, I think the possibility of a non-JV carrier filling in for a route like SEL-DTW, if it's a lower cost, could happen.

Personally, I don't mind being more efficient and "earning our keep". SWA pilot are paid well, but they are very efficient, both in the cockpit and out (training costs, etc). I know we're not going to do 25 minute turns in a 757, but lets get the operation tuned up and we can do better than an hour and a half turns for the pilots.