Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 925629)

You must have received a different letter from the Chairman then the one I got via email. In the letter I received he did not have any list of priorities. He only stated one thing and that was that in the lec meetings and lounge visits he heard loud and clear from the pilots that compensation was the primary issue. Having been at one of the lounge visits I can tell you that that is exactly what the pilots stated over and over again. In fact I sadly I did not hear scope mentioned.

Here are his comments.

/////•
Our sacrifices in bankruptcy were instrumental in allowing both pre‐merger companies to survive and, despite incremental improvements, you continue to feel the burden of those sacrifices every month.
•
The union and the pilots banded together to facilitate a historic merger, whose success may never be duplicated, yet our bankruptcy sacrifices have, for the most part, gone unrewarded.
•
Our sacrifices and efforts have contributed to an industry powerhouse that is now thriving, which was a primary intent of the significant investment in our company. Yet, our compensation has not dramatically improved.
•
You expect to prosper as our company prospers.
•
You expect this prosperity to come sooner rather than later in the way of significant contractual gains.
•
While several sections of our contract need improvement, direct compensation is by far the primary issue.//////

Show me his list of priorities in the letter and where scope was omitted from that list.
Here is another portion of the letter.

////We have a lot of work to do, and I ask that you do your part. Read the material provided and then talk to your elected LEC reps or find a P2P volunteer to provide your feedback about what you like and don’t like about these communications, about the issues or about the direction of your union.
In short, we want your input and we are listening./////

As it should be his list of priorities for the contract is not even formed yet. He is asking for your input to form that list. There will be numerous chances for you to do so with the biggest being the contract survey. He should not have a list or priorities at this point. He is doing exactly what should be done. Gather input from the pilots to form a basis for a contract opener that reflects the wishes and desires of the pilot group.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 925640)

I don't get it. According to some of the "vocal opposition" L. Moak had too strong a hand and was "steering the MEC to further his own agenda".

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 925640)

The new MEC Chairman states clearly that we are way short of what we should be getting, is setting up ways to communicate better and gather from the membership as much info as possible so that a clear set of member driven goals can be set.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 925640)

This same "vocal opposition" then complains that the new MEC Chairman isn't setting the priorities.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 925640)

WE were supposed to give our LEC and MEC our input and the LEC's and MEC get together and decide the priorities, then tell the MEC Chairman to execute those priorities.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 925640)

I guess some people just aren't happy until they aren't happy.:(

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 925641)

Shiz that is correct, and I do expect this MEC to take its direction from the pilots. T.O. hears the pilots and will engage every resource at his disposal to further their agenda.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 925933)

Nice attempt at spin control there sailing, but here is what the letter actually said before the list of bullet points:

I have attended several local council meetings to listen to pilots’ concerns, talked with your LEC reps following their visits to the pilot lounges, and received initial feedback from the newly formed Pilot‐To‐Pilot (P2P) Committee. I want to assure you that your elected representatives, your MEC officers, and your MEC committee members are hearing your message. Some highlights of the issues and concerns you have expressed are:

As you can clearly see, O'Malley's letter was not just a list of pilot concerns heard duriing lounge visits. It was concerns expressed during LEC meetings, P2P sessions, and lounge visits. There is no possibility that the huge concerns over Scope was never talked about during the LEC meetings he attended.

The only question now is why O'Malley has purposely not mentioned Scope. He's clearly gotten an influx of opinion that he should have mentioned it. But still no additional word from him. Why?

Carl

Originally Posted by iaflyer (Post 925705)

Call me crazy, but maybe the first step would be our leadership saying that Scope is important.

Did you read the Council 20 Update this morning? For those outside the DTW council, here's what was said:

---
Some pilots have expressed concern with Captain O’Malley for failing to address scope in his letter. Scope was previously addressed by the MEC in resolution 09-144; a Council 20 submitted resolution. The resolution was unanimously approved by the MEC. The resolution states:

Agenda Item 09-144 Mainline Flying Restoration – submitted by Council 20

Maker: Hay Second: McDonald Passed: Unanimous.

BE IT RESOLVED the Delta Master Executive Council affirms its commitment to enforcing and improving all sections of the Pilot Working Agreement, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Delta Master Executive Council affirms Section 1 of the Pilot Working Agreement is an integral part of a comprehensive strategy to protect the careers of all Delta pilots.

The DAL MEC has committed to protecting and improving scope. The Negotiating Committee takes direction from the elected representatives; who take it from you, the line pilot. Please participate in the process as the MEC Chairman has requested. At the November MEC meeting, the MEC directed the Scheduling Committee to create a rotation questionnaire, e.g. preferences on rotation length, mixing international and domestic in a rotation, flight time per day, etc. We hope to have the questionnaire available for your participation soon.

--

I personally would like a stronger statement, than a "eh, we said it last year"

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 925937)

By not mentioning the importance of Scope during his inaugural letter, he's off to a very bad start.

Carl

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 925939)

Carl are you just purposely ignoring the facts? Why don't you look up the definition of the word "primary". Here is the first line from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 925941)

That was indeed a pathetic response. I can't believe that D. Massey could have had anything to do with such a weak kneed statement on Scope.

Carl