Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by NuGuy
I was assured that it would remain open unless they were directly talking about negotiating strategy.
Nu
Nu
I talked to a few that thought that it would be closed due to some of the discussion.
07-09-2011, 10:35 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
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.
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.
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.
07-09-2011, 10:37 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by iaflyer
Anyone else catch this tidbit in the Council 20 update from yesterday?
Unable To Commute Policy
In a letter dated February 17, 2011, Captain Jim Graham explained the Unable to Commute Policy. This letter is available on the Flight Operations website under Pilot Tools. Recently, Flight Operations has been sending letters to pilots following an unable to commute event. We were briefed at the May MEC meeting on these changes. These changes include counseling and possible removal from the program for pilots who have excessive usage over a certain period of time. Providing specifics of the policy and enforcement rests with Flight Operations.
Unable To Commute Policy
In a letter dated February 17, 2011, Captain Jim Graham explained the Unable to Commute Policy. This letter is available on the Flight Operations website under Pilot Tools. Recently, Flight Operations has been sending letters to pilots following an unable to commute event. We were briefed at the May MEC meeting on these changes. These changes include counseling and possible removal from the program for pilots who have excessive usage over a certain period of time. Providing specifics of the policy and enforcement rests with Flight Operations.
Originally Posted by scambo1
I'm pretty sure that is a direct quote from the original letter.
Originally Posted by iaflyer
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.
Originally Posted by scambo1
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.
Okay, its not a direct quote, but it is how I read 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.
07-09-2011, 10:54 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
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.
I talked to a few that thought that it would be closed due to some of the discussion.
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
07-09-2011, 11:02 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Just to keep the whole discussion factual the Company has not offered any raises for scope relaxation since the 1113 contract came into force. They did not mention or ask for it in the joint contract. They have not mentioned or asked for it since the joint contract. Dalpa and the company have had no talks on the subject. The entire concept is a mythical creation of this and other forums.
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."
07-09-2011, 11:21 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by NuGuy
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
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
I want to know WHY the NC needs to be changed so close to Sec 6? Why change a NC that has made significant improvements to a contract with crummy work rules at a price of no cost? What did it cost to get our pay system changed? Nothing. What did it cost to get PS DH's on deviations? Nothing. What did it take to get some Sec 23K areas changed? Nothing. That's just a few things that have been done. Why change the NC now?
07-09-2011, 11:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by johnso29
In a way it has to do exactly with this, because certain people want the NC changed. Certain people feel there is too level of a playing field. I agree with you Nu. If they change the NC this close to Sec 6, then bring on DPA because they just chopped off the only leg holding themselves up.
I want to know WHY the NC needs to be changed so close to Sec 6? Why change a NC that has made significant improvements to a contract with crummy work rules at a price of no cost? What did it cost to get our pay system changed? Nothing. What did it cost to get PS DH's on deviations? Nothing. What did it take to get some Sec 23K areas changed? Nothing. That's just a few things that have been done. Why change the NC now?
I want to know WHY the NC needs to be changed so close to Sec 6? Why change a NC that has made significant improvements to a contract with crummy work rules at a price of no cost? What did it cost to get our pay system changed? Nothing. What did it cost to get PS DH's on deviations? Nothing. What did it take to get some Sec 23K areas changed? Nothing. That's just a few things that have been done. Why change the NC now?
The current negotiating committee was elected in March of 2010, and I believe their term of office began July 1, 2010. According to the PWA, management and ALPA can exchange Section 6 openers 270 days prior to the expiration of the current contract (April 5, 2011). The following is from the MEC Policy Manual (in the DALPA site file library). Note that the MEC can waive or amend policy (it is their manual) at their discretion.
SECTION 7 − COMMITTEES OF THE MEC
d. The Negotiating Committee will normally serve for a period:
1) Commencing six months before the Opening Letter may be presented by either party to commence Section 6 negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, in which case the committee will serve for a period not to exceed six months after the signing of the new Section 6 Agreement (or its equivalent), or
2) Commencing no later than six months after the signing of an Agreement in Section 6 negotiations (or its equivalent), and for a term not to exceed two years.
e. Within the constraints of d.1) and 2) above and in order to provide for an orderly transition, the MEC chairman may choose to schedule the election of a new committee within the 90-day period (or at the regularly scheduled MEC meeting immediately prior to the 90-day period) prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent committee. The newly elected committee will take office at the expiration of the incumbent committee’s term.
07-09-2011, 11:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by tsquare
I disagree with your LBP analysis. You are wrong about how seniority will be affected.
Both Slow and I have provided a rational, logical opinion regarding the outcome of the effects of LBP on pilot bidding behavior. You counter with nothing more than "You are wrong."
Please provide your opposing argument, rather than just dissing ours. We're waiting ...
07-09-2011, 11:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by slowplay
We've talked about this before, Johnso. Where do you come up with all this conspiracy stuff? And what is "too level of a playing field"? Why don't you just state the real reason you're concerned vice obfuscating?
The current negotiating committee was elected in March of 2010, and I believe their term of office began July 1, 2010. According to the PWA, management and ALPA can exchange Section 6 openers 270 days prior to the expiration of the current contract (April 5, 2011). The following is from the MEC Policy Manual (in the DALPA site file library). Note that the MEC can waive or amend policy (it is their manual) at their discretion.
SECTION 7 − COMMITTEES OF THE MEC
d. The Negotiating Committee will normally serve for a period:
1) Commencing six months before the Opening Letter may be presented by either party to commence Section 6 negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, in which case the committee will serve for a period not to exceed six months after the signing of the new Section 6 Agreement (or its equivalent), or
2) Commencing no later than six months after the signing of an Agreement in Section 6 negotiations (or its equivalent), and for a term not to exceed two years.
e. Within the constraints of d.1) and 2) above and in order to provide for an orderly transition, the MEC chairman may choose to schedule the election of a new committee within the 90-day period (or at the regularly scheduled MEC meeting immediately prior to the 90-day period) prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent committee. The newly elected committee will take office at the expiration of the incumbent committee’s term.
The current negotiating committee was elected in March of 2010, and I believe their term of office began July 1, 2010. According to the PWA, management and ALPA can exchange Section 6 openers 270 days prior to the expiration of the current contract (April 5, 2011). The following is from the MEC Policy Manual (in the DALPA site file library). Note that the MEC can waive or amend policy (it is their manual) at their discretion.
SECTION 7 − COMMITTEES OF THE MEC
d. The Negotiating Committee will normally serve for a period:
1) Commencing six months before the Opening Letter may be presented by either party to commence Section 6 negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, in which case the committee will serve for a period not to exceed six months after the signing of the new Section 6 Agreement (or its equivalent), or
2) Commencing no later than six months after the signing of an Agreement in Section 6 negotiations (or its equivalent), and for a term not to exceed two years.
e. Within the constraints of d.1) and 2) above and in order to provide for an orderly transition, the MEC chairman may choose to schedule the election of a new committee within the 90-day period (or at the regularly scheduled MEC meeting immediately prior to the 90-day period) prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent committee. The newly elected committee will take office at the expiration of the incumbent committee’s term.
Instead, 2/3 of the LEC reps insisted on a physical meeting.
Somethings more going on than the sound bites would imply.
Nu
07-09-2011, 12:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,932
Originally Posted by johnso29
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
