I was assured that it would remain open unless they were directly talking about negotiating strategy.


Nu

Dispatch must get really mad when the only thunderstorm around ATL is over the airport. I do too. It messes up the puff puff pass rotation on the reserve availability list and I need rain.

Not any letter I've seen. It's not in the letter that pilots get when they use the policy. I'm pretty sure it's not in the original explanation of the program.

Air France?

We've established that there 178 transoceanic airplanes and 544 domestic aircraft.

Air France comes in at 15 A332s, 16 A340s, 6 A380s, 13 744s, 25 772s, 35 773s for a total of... 110 transoceanic airplanes. They have a 143 domestic birds.

Just throwing it out there as a fwiw.

This new policy will be a significant benefit to a large number of our pilots and should not be taken for granted. So, a pilot choosing a plan that requires use of this policy too frequently should expect to formally review his commuting strategy with his Chief Pilot. Additionally, should the administration of this policy or the impact to the business become too burdensome, Flight Operations will review and amend the policy as appropriate.



Okay, its not a direct quote, but it is how I read it.

Well, I would attempt it if I was here, but I will be enjoying one of the best cities in the world.

I talked to a few that thought that it would be closed due to some of the discussion.

Air France also has Regional Airlines flying E190s, Brit Air flying CRK's (CRJ-1000s), and Cityjet flying Avros. Their domestic flying is heavily outsourced within France, and throughout Europe. Have you seen that CRK? It is ridiculously long, and again Regional Airlines flies E190s for them. Bad.

KLM has KLM Cityhopper, and they fly F70s and E190s, but their pilots are essentially on the KLM list. A 744 FO for KLM can bid the E190 as a Captain. The Fokkers originated at Air UK, and they used to fly F100s and F50s. Now, it's mainly F70s and E190s, but they are under one roof. They may also own Transavia, with 737-700s/800s, but I don't believe they can flow to KLM.

Yes, but the issue is pilots receive this after using the UTCP only ONE time. This letter comes of as a disciplinary letter with an almost scolding tone. It's has a 'We will let it slide this time, but don't let it happen again' feel to it. Bottom line, that's not something that makes people feel comfortable using it.

The original intent of this program was for it to be mutually beneficial, and if the company comes across with this attitude the 1st time you use it, it is likely that guys will not use it in fear of reprimand. It's silly you receive this letter after you've used it ONCE. I can understand if there is a pattern of abuse by a particular individual, but this letter is over the top IMO.

It may not be the companies intent to come off the way they do, but I think many will perceive it as a threat.

There is considerable internal rancor involved with this meeting.

Unless there is some REAL reason to close the meeting, like discussion of negotiating strategy or tactics, I was assured that it will be held in open session, with any attempts to close the meeting otherwise to be held to a recorded vote. Anyone in ATL who can make it, should make it.

There is considerable upset going on here. We should watch the outcome closely, and everyone should contact their reps after the fact for the blow-by-blow. There are agendas at work here, folks....if it was a simple election to confirm the committee members, as some who are quoting the letter of the policy manual imply, that can be done with a conference call.

But 2/3s of the LEC reps called for a special meeting, and only 1/3 is required.

The current NC has been working very well together, and has provided some acceptable gains and have worked with their corporate counterparts. Any change in the game plan at this point, and you defeat what the cheerleaders principal complaint against the DPA is...that is changing the players before the big game.

Nu

Agreed, that is factual.

But there are a number of "supposals" which get talked about. Some of these concepts eventually become agreements. Once agreement is reached, consensus forms quickly and at that point it is virtually assured of continuing to a grievance settlement, LOA, or part of a PWA.

IMHO our MEC has given our pilots plenty of objective reasons not to trust them on Section 1 issues. If I trusted our MEC, or even my own Reps, these rumors would be put to rest as soon as they came in. That trust is desired by a great many pilots.

Our MEC has been resolute on not going on the record in support of restoration of Section 1. In fact, we've given away part of our scope language agreed to by the Company, agreed with the Company's interpretation of scope language and divested Compass from our representational structure.

Trust is earned. Our MEC could earn this trust by emphasizing the value of each and every member. Our MEC could earn this trust by going on record with "no scope liberalization, Delta pilots perform Delta flying."