There are new guys moving up the ranks, that's true. But they are fighting an uphill battle within.

Initially it was our own union that opposed the change in how we're paid, the "what are we willing to give up/not worth it/go pound sand" crowd.

Only after someone opened their eyes to compound interest over 30 years on a paycheck that is 2 weeks late did they consider presenting it to the company. Ironically the company response was "sure, we'll do it"

It's that type of stuff that makes it hard sometimes to see who is working for who's interest...

Cheers
George

If you want to have exclusive rights over questions addressed to anyone, including you, and you wish to ensure noone butts in to "your" conversations, then you're picking the wrong locale. No conversations are private here.

I'm gonna give this a modest thumbs up... but... I am pretty sure that we don't need AF's permission to fly BOS-CDG, but I guess we are getting their unused rights to fly into LHR, so I guess this is OK. And personally, I know that MCO is not a big money maker since it is the #1 tourist destination in this or any other solar system... so I would rather make higher yield elsewhere...

Actually it is covered in the AF-KLM-DAL JV and is part of the slightly favorable 50-50 split.

I agree about MCO....its low yield, but it does affect us regardless.

WRT to "permission" to fly BOS-CDG, we don't have to get "permission", but we do operate ALL trans-Atlantic flying via the JV....Which means every time you go to Europe, you are partly a KLM pilot and partly an AF pilot(without the stinky armpits.......maybe:D).

All the money from the trans-Atlantic flying is divided between KLM/AF/DAL, so it is all parties' best interest to make sure that all flying is profitable.

Where is that JV agreement? I have tried reading section 1, and since I am not a lawyer, and not part of the smartest legal team to ever grace the airline industry, it is hard to make heads or tails of that legaleze...

All B schedules are out except SEA & SLC 7er.

Im with you too.

Anybody worry that our careers will eventually become like the shipping (cruise/tankers) industry (majority of ships and crews are foreigners)? With all these Foreign JVs, codeshare and alliances (skyteam/oneworld) it seems like most of our flying is being farmed out little by little, sneaky.

Am I thinking about this in a wrong way?

This Republic thing has me concerned also. I think they own Airbuses now and a bunch of gates in DCA and LGA.



TYG

Aren't you assuming that everyone wanted to be paid this way? I actually didn't feel that it was a necessary change intially, and certainly didn't want to cash in in any favors to effect the change. I sort of felt it was the guys that couldn't afford to live within their means, or the North guys that felt the need to have things done their way, that wanted the larger "advance". It took me a little while to come around to the idea, and realize there was no upside to loaning my own money to Delta for free... so you can blame it on inertia, or a lack of imagination, or cross-cultural suspicion, but the idea eventually made its' way across this pilots' cluttered brain, other pilots' cluttered brains, and it resulted in a policy change then.

Isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen: the union asks to change things after enough pilots show a desire? Just because something is clear to a demographic of pilots doesn't mean it's universally accepted.

I'm not saying there isn't some inherent inertia within the union: some reps have never seen a new idea they liked, until they're beaten over the head with it, or voted out over it. Over time, I've found that some of my reps were so consumed with the political game, and so interested in their place within the game, that it was hard to believe they actually were in a union at all, an completely absurd they should hold a "leadership" role.

Nonetheless, don't forget to account for the fact that there is inertia within the pilot group as a whole, and some good ideas have to wait to move forward until enough people agree they're good ideas.

In the legal sense, which I know you are aware of, a violation must occur for a grievance to be filed. Lawyers save us the time of spending money foolishly on such errant endeavors. Now, I know people will attack who the lawyers are, conflict of interest, and so on, but the fact remains that RJET is not currently represented by ALPA so all of that is with out basis.

No one knows, as you know what a court or arbitrator will decide, even if you have all of the facts on your side. Even with this statement, the crux of the matter of which we speak revolves around what an "air carrier" is and is not. It has been hashed and rehashed not just here but within the ranks of ALPA and the result is an "air carrier" is defined by certificate, not holder of the certificate, with regard to our section one.

If Republic, CHQ, Shuttle America, F9, MEC et al had in their business filings Republic Holdings DBA as Shuttle America, etc then you may have a argument, but as it stands there are merely the holding company of a lot of airlines. Yep, sneaky, and Brian Bedford probably calls most the shots, but it is the reality of the words in the legal document.

To answer your question; given the corporate structure, the wording of the PWA, the intent of that language, and said definitions, going to an arbitrator would be a waste of time. It does not preclude the fact, that if the majority position of the Delta pilots is to change it, focus on section one, and exert their will to these ends, then we should do that. Reality is that 12,300 pilots have a say, not just us.

Remember the reps elected are elected by us, are generally full of fire and brimstone when taking office, and then after they see the realities of each issue, the tone changes. Ask why? The answer should be self explanatory. The end game is better language that is more concise, which relies less of negotiator's notes and more on the language itself.