Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

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.

An excellent point at the very heart of "ALPA will do right by us and would never go against what we the people want". Ever heard of age 65?

Carl Spackler

01-02-2011 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jetnwa (Post 923772)

As for "Complaining" about a threat to my career again, well Johnson, I don't know when you were hired. A lot of us pre 2001 NWA/DAL hires have been "around the block" with this issue and it wasn't fun. Taking a very vocal, hard line attitude on Scope is an important issue for us. The "silence" from the MEC on this matter has been deafening. Maybe they have it suitcased and are just being quiet about it?

And there was just no reason for it. It would have been so easy to list this along with pay. O'Malley chose not to do it. The question why is very troubling and should be to everyone. I believe it means that we will have to fight our own MEC and ALPA national to stop outsourcing our jobs. Incredible isn't it? Fighting your own union to stop the company from outsourcing us.

Carl

Carl Spackler

01-02-2011 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 923794)

Carl, I have no doubt the reps will follow the will of the represented; but that will may or may not reflect the will of the APC forum, or the 747 crowd. Something to consider. Just because you don't get your way, doesn't mean the reps aren't following the will of those they represent.

I agree with that PG. But do you honestly believe that Oursourcing/Scope is not a majority opinion? Everyone I talk to says it is. My DTW reps all agree it is the major issue. Other guys here say their reps are totally on board. How could O'Malley not list an item that is universally understood as important by our reps? Has he not spoken to them?

Carl

Carl Spackler

01-02-2011 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 923795)

Maybe, maybe not.

We'll see how well PtP does when the current "DPA Threat" blows over, and then we'll be in a position to make that call.

My voice mail had 10 messages today alone with guys calling me about the "lack of scope message" (and one from the "IA Machine").

You can bet if the leadership was onboard with the Scope message, that the CA/UA Arbitration would be front page "in-your-face-when-you-log-into-DALPA" news.

Nu

This is what concerns me the most. I don't think our leadership is on board with our Scope message.

Carl

Carl Spackler

01-02-2011 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 923803)

If I were in charge, I'd save my ammo for when it was going to have max effect.

I understand that, and it makes perfect sense. O'Malley clearly showed that the pay bullet is in the ammo clip. Why not also state that the Scope/Outsourcing bullet is also in the ammo clip...we are just waiting for the right time to fire?

Carl

Carl Spackler

01-02-2011 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 923815)

Also, in order for 51% to vote to loosen scope, the proposition to do so has to make it to MEMRAT. That's unlikely.

It absolutely does not have to be MEMRAT. There is nothing in the DALPA or ALPA by-laws that prohibit union leadership from TA'ing an agreement to loosen scope. This is one of the reasons it concerns me to not have the new MEC chairman vocally on board with no Outsourcing.

Carl

acl65pilot

01-02-2011 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 923813)

There was nothing to keep Moak from asking for a sign off by the reps. Moak chose not to. I'm glad you're hearing that shouldn't have been done.

I am sure there are some that have not issue with it, but the guys that I talked to (this was some time ago) felt that the process should have been more visible)

Quote:

I liked the letter except for this glaring omission. The omission was so big, it has tainted the rest of the letter and Mr. O'Malley in my eyes. He can correct it with another letter. (Sound of crickets).

Call it whatever you want, I know scope will be important to the reps who will be providing the direction for C2012.

Quote:

Let's hope you don't wake up to another "deal" having been done with or without the reps. It will be too late then.

Carl

I do not think that will happen. I suspect these reps will not allow it. If they would I would expect the pressure cap to blow off the pilot group. As you and others have said, this pilot group is very angry and irritated. I would venture to bet that one big event or misstep by any party, would cause a bunch of guys to explode. No one wants that. Not the company and not the union. The company would like to put the fire in the groups belly out with as little water as possible, and the union wants to harness that angst and cause it to blow at the correct time. That is why I do not see anyone from our pilot group willfully trying to have the powder blow early. It would work against us. We as a group do not need any momentum killers.

jetnwa

01-02-2011 12:48 PM

Johnson,

You have brought up a very good question and a very valid point. Compass was created in CH-11 (total leverage for management) but also the former Avros were replaced with Large Bombardier RJs at Mesaba for the 70+ total RJs.

IOW, they used two aircraft vendors to introduce and/or replace the equipment in an expeditious manner. It really happened in a hurry. The real jab in the eye was the fact our pay cuts probably helped finance the new RJs for someone else to fly.

My concern is future incorporation of our flying that is spun off at some point if we allow Scope to be eroded. The 50 seaters are not economical but 100 seat aircraft? I have no doubt even a regional could get the financing for such aircraft and they would be here in a hurry as well. I don't want to cross that bridge.

We are making profits (generating cash) and paying down debt. It is a very good thing to see. With that being said, as someone else put on this board, I hope the pilot group doesn't fall for any accounting sleight of hand about having aircraft bought but flown somewhere else again.

I am sure the 9s will be gone soon and the 88s will be getting long in the tooth. If any new aircraft are going to be flown, we have to be the ones flying them.

acl65pilot

01-02-2011 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 923830)

Carl;
You are correct, but go call your Sec Tres in C20 and tell me what he says about that. Then report back and tell me if he has eased your fears.

I suggest that you draft and submit a resolution for your next C20 meeting directing your reps to seek a Policy Manual or By-Law Change.

I know where you are coming from. The policy is to have MEMRAT on items that significantly change the contract, and your heart burn is what is defined as significant.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.

Page 5575 of 20174