Yes, but you have to look at all the work our MEC has done to keep that flying off our list. I want to see the general presupposition changed. I want to see the default position being "Delta pilots perform Delta flying."

We owned their flying until our leadership sold us the exact same bad legal advice they sold the T-Way pilots, so they could use our jobs as bargaining credit.

I've always maintained the pilots with valid DFR claims were not the Comair pilots, but rather, the mainline guys.

(and I'm NOT encouraging anti ALPA litigation, the differences with us and T-WAY are that we ratified our scope deals and the statute of limitations has expired long ago. I am just pointing out the same extremely flawed legal reasoning was used in both instances to convince the mainline pilots to give up the most important parts of their contract ... in fact, I wonder if it was not for the adoption of outsourcing at the mainline carriers, if ALPA would have developed and sold the whole notion that scope would be waived in bankruptcy)

Could one of you number crunching experts (who forgot to bid) figure out the effects on the size of our list if AS were reined in, RAH terminated, and DCI sunsetted? As in, we would need to add X pilots over the next Y years to do this flying ourselves? I think making that information very public to the Delta pilots BEFORE the contract survey could have a huge effect on the survey outcome.

For example, if I were a 73N Capt 25% of the way down our list, and I found out the list would have to increase by 50% if we owned this flying, I would realize I would move up to 17% seniority. And that's with ZERO retirements. The ability to bid a line a couple of categories up is a significant payraise! It's a step toward the restoration folks want, but it doesn't sound as shocking or hard to bargain for as a 57% (or whatever) raise to the base rates we have now.

Right on Bar! Round and round we go.
ALPA isn't a pilot union, its a welfare program for attorneys.
Our dues dollars go mostly to Cohen, Weiss and Simon and to pay off the judgments that people keep winning against us for the lousy legal advice we get from Cohen, Weiss and Simon.

The DPA just has to bide their time until the TWA assessment is announced.
Then the cards will start flowing.

Bravo Sierra.

The scope language NWALPA had in place forbade the sale of Compass until a suitable DC-9 replacement for the mainline was flying (at least 10 hulls).

By removing that restriction, which did NOT occur until the JCBA, DALPA willingly facilitated the sale of Compass. We had language that directly controlled the disposition of that company...which is as close as "owning" the flying as you get without actually doing the flying, and it was given away by people who had NOT given up any negotiating capital to get it.


Nu

But Nu! We HAD to get them their own MEC and reps in case we merged! We all know there was such a huge chance of that happening.

Hi Nu,
Honestly, I'm not following this. I think this conversation is about an analogy between NWA/Compass and the A/A & TWA judgment that is going on in another thread. (Is this much right?). If so, I am confused about your statement in the last paragraph, where you state "which is as close as owning the flying as you get without actually doing the flying..." But from my (our, as in DAL pilots) perspective, if I (DAL pilots) am not doing the flying, that is simply a matter of semantics. Which at the end of the day, yields zero on the seniority list here at Ma Delta. Again, I am really trying hard to follow this, but keep coming up at a loss to 'splain it.
Chuck

Question. Training took my trip for IOE. Can I pick up a trip either white slip or green slip and will that go on top of my trip guarantee???

Quite simple,

By keeping the Compass flying "bottled up" with the scope language we had, the company could do NOTHING with Compass until we got more airplanes on the property...specifically aircraft that Compass was designed to replace.

It put the company in a corner.

Nu

As a Capt you have no Section 23 requirements so yes. If you (not you) are a FO, you have your Section 23 requirements, and then you can WS or GS trips after that requirement is completed.