Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude (Post 1001656)

In case you have forgotten there was a chance for the DAL MEC to support recapturing a segment of the 76 seat flying with the resolution proposed to staple CP to the bottom of the seniority list. The DAL MEC voted against it and went as far as removing CP from the MEC saying that we had competing interests. They were only competing interests in the opinion of the DAL MEC and that is proven by the fact that 95% of CP pilots took the flow to DL when offered.

I don't think you will find a whole lot of regional guys that want to see this trend continue. Unfortunately, in most ways you guys control the careers of those that come behind you. The modern day B-scale and only you all can end it.

You hear mainline guys talk about RJ guys taking their jobs, well, mainline pilots weakening scope has taken the career potential from many RJ guys.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1001587)

Carl-
I have to admit that I haven't been closely following the discussion over in the DPA thread. This exchange you've been having regarding the status of scope as a subject of mandatory bargaining has caught my eye however.
I'm pretty sure that you were correct in your initial interpretaion and PCL 128 is mistaken when he states that we can never strike over a scope issue. I believe his reading of the court's opinion is in error. He's overlooking a crucial distinction between that JAL Machinist's case and our current situation.
We already have a scope clause. It is part of an existing set of "rules and working conditions". The IAM contract with JAL had none. The IAM was trying to get their very first scope language. This wasn't about the machinists who were working under the agreement. They were trying to bring new people and new work sites under their jurisdiction. It wasn't really outsourcing because that work had never been "insourced". That's a huge difference. Look at these parapraghs from the court's ruling:

The primary impact of the scope proposal does not lie in these mandatory areas of bargaining. If adopted, its principal beneficiaries would be those persons hired to fill the newly created jobs. Nothing in the RLA obliges JAL to discuss with the Union issues of immediate concern only to individuals not yet included within the bargaining unit. See Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 179-80, 30 L. Ed. 2d 341, 92 S. Ct. 383 (1971); NLRB v. Local 445, supra.


The RLA was enacted in 1926 against a background of nearly forty years of frustration with unsuccessful legislative efforts to stabilize labor relations in the railroad industry. In unique fashion, it was drafted by representatives of the carriers and their employees and then enacted by the Congress. See International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 758, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141, 81 S. Ct. 1784 (1961). Testifying on behalf of the bill which they had written at hearings which preceded its passage, spokesmen for both labor and management emphasized that "the only kind of a dispute wherein there is any danger of . . . a strike is a dispute where there is a change sought in the existing rules and working conditions."

The court goes on to talk about the fact that the IAM's current employees are already protected by a no furlough clause and their job security is not dependent on JAL's discontinuance of "subcontracting". The IAM's attempt to open up this new area of bargaining and extend their contract far beyond its current "scope" was not something that they could strike about --- but that is definitely NOT the case if you are talking about the Delta Pilot Working Agreement.
We have a long established scope clause. It is an integral and vital part of our "rules and working conditions". We have been bargaining on that issue for years. Our job security is quite clearly dependent on the strength of our scope language. That is not a subject that management can now suddenly refuse to discuss. Our situation is very different from the JAL machinists.

PCL 128 didn't post the whole opinion. He left out some crucial passages. Specifically the last 4 or 5 paragraphs. Those sections of the opinion make it clear that the court is only saying that management can refuse to bargain over scope only when the union is seeking to substantially expand the reach of its contract and the job security of the existing workers is not really at issue. They are clearly not issuing a flat ruling that scope issues can never be the subject of a dispute that leads to a release to self-help. Its only if the particular scope issue is "peripheral" that you can't strike over it. That's not the case with major airline pilots these days.

Anyway, I've babbled enough. Bottom line is -- that case doesn't apply to us. I think both DALPA and the company have a duty to bargain over scope and either party could legitimately insist on their position all the way through to self-help under the RLA.

Here's a link to the full text if you're interested:

FindACase™ | Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1001620)

Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.

The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous. Its even more loony than saying that Republic Air is not an air carrier.

Here's the Supreme Court on the issue:

The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/203/case.html

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1001675)

I haven't been on this thread for quite some time so I'm not up to date, but I have a question for the Airbus drivers.

Do the sidestick controllers move and do they provide artificial feel feed back? There is some debates going on about this issue for the AF447 flight.

Thanks

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1001687)

Hey. I've been doing a lot of deadheading before and after my trips lately and haven't been to my mailbox in a while.

How do you get notified that your fleet has officially changed over to ship sets and you don't have to bring your flight kit's to work with you anymore?

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1001687)

Hey. I've been doing a lot of deadheading before and after my trips lately and haven't been to my mailbox in a while.

How do you get notified that your fleet has officially changed over to ship sets and you don't have to bring your flight kit's to work with you anymore?

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1001666)

I think the next scope battle will be the bait and switch. They'll return the jets for relief in the turboprop area, and it will be a huge mistake. The next gen turboprops will compete directly with jets.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1001693)

my opinion is that if it has wings, dal pilots should be flying it. Whether it is coded, branded, or market in any way shape or form, dal seniority listed pilots should be flying it. The caveat is that we need to be realistic about market rates and take the flying when we can and then go from there. We have a hold to dig out of. The first step is making the decision to partake in the endeavor.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1001688)

You have to find a pilot that you know is on the 9 and if they're smiling, they have ship sets.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1001689)

I first heard that all 737s had been completed when the Chief Line Check Pilot put a blurb on the 737 fleet page of DeltaNet. A couple days later it came out both as a paper bulletin in my v-file and an electronic bulletin on DBMS. They got it done early and actually made it official a few days before their target date.
They sent out a very useful summary of how to read the 3 colored expiration stickers on the flight kits, how to maintain your McRib, etc. etc.