The company is not in violation of the ALV on the M88B. Not sure where you got your info however its incorrect.

It has to be within a window for the year, which they will be.

Einbahnstrasse...

DALPA did look out for the majority of dues paying members with the LOA. As far as you having a regular line...hogwash. There would have been several hundred guys displaced throughout the system; guess where they would have wound up? That's right, on top of you. Even with a lower ALV, you still would be on reserve. Instead, all those guys didn't get displaced, didn't have to go to training, and didn't take a paycut. And they didn't wind up on your equipment in front of you, leaving you on reserve for an even longer period of time.

Oh, and the ALV/TLV calculations will be in compliance through the end of the year.

I forgot, it is all about YOU in this union...:rolleyes:

The only reason the company is NOT in violation is because ALPA signed a LOA to allow the company to exceed the ALV for 3 months. The the M88B has had a 81-82hour ALV since OCT 08. We should have given them so more 70+ seat RJs with the deal too... :rolleyes:

They still have to be in compliance with the TLV for the year. (That is how I read it)

Those who have a problem with the LOA on the 88 should contact there reps and get a full explanation. That fact you have not I find a bit disturbing. There was a lot more to the LOA then just preventing displacements that have long term career implications if you were a junior pilot. The LOA allowed the company 5 extra hours per month for 3 whole months. I guess we should have just kept the block hours the flying provided with the RJ's and let the bottom guys suffer the long term implications on other issues that the planned displacement would have created.

Rockyboy......How long have you been at Delta.....? Tell us all.....
Did you make 2nd year pay yet....?
Just curious.....

That was my thinking too, but after 1 year isn't he owed a block(line):rolleyes:

Come on guys!!! I asked a question, someone gave thier opinion, and all the EXPERTS on this board want to jump his case. GMAFB!!!

I thought the LOA for the 88 was to bring the ALV up to 82 hrs for 3 months and then bring it back down to normal levels. If the TLV has to be within compliance for the year, why did they need permission to raise the ALV for 3 months? I am no EXPERT, so maybe they can chime in!!!

I believe the premise behind the LOA was to add a 5 extra hours to the ALV for three months without it impacting the TLV. But the hours were still pretty high... for the later part of the year we should be at the bottom of the range most months. until another LOA is signed haha.