So, I wonder how many on the MEC (AND THE COMMITTEE TYPES) just played the "musical chairs" game, like the NYC LEC rep that got voted out, and then voted himself on to the merger committee.

How many people are STILL in the back office, but they just change offices every so often. Maybe that's where the resistance to publishing the FPL is coming from.

I noticed the MEC got all skittish when the resolution to make all committee chairman stand for election by the MEC got introduced last meeting...

Nu

 

Like I said, I'm not against PS passes. That's fine. I just thought it was strange that such a specific and extremely minor potential future benefit was included in a survey that made us try and choose between scope versus pay, retirement versus work rules.

Give us PS passes, great! Make them first class, who wouldn't want that! Mandatory covered parking and crew bags valet delivered from jetway to hotel room. Gourmet crew meals for all flights. Whatever. But these kinds of things go way, way, way to the back of the line. We outsource half our flying and are so far below one of our low cost carrier brethern that the W-2 and days off differential is sickening, and that's just for small narrowbody flying.

Speaking of vacation though, we need to fix vacation before we worry about adding nifty little perks to vacation. 21 hours a week is absolutely pathetic. It needs to be at least 35 and until we can get a paultry 5 hours a day for vacation, little tertiary perks like PS tickets take a back seat. Give me a SWA W-2 plus reasonable premiums to account for our higher per pilot revenue and up from there for bigger equipment, 5 or more hour a day vacation, massive scope recapture and better QOL all around and I will find my own way to vacation. If, after we get all that, PS vacation passes are still on the table, absolutely let's go for it.

 

God Bless America

 

On the day of official openers, we need to dig deep and see if "meet and confers" have happened and if not, press the issue. If they have, we need to look into what was said. Status quo is not going to work. Large RJ's need to be significantly reduced (only the ones the company wants to outsource that it), small RJ's eed to be capped at least to their planned dwindling numbers and the AK code share abuse needs to be reigned in (not sure if they require a meet and confer but if so it needs to happen). JV stuff needs tightening as well, but there won't be any meet and confers required with those so we will have to dig even deeper.

 

seekingalpha not a fan of Delta NWA merger and not a fan of the FA's

Delta also made a mistake buying NWA a few years ago, making changes that much more difficult. It will not be long and we will see China providing greater competition to the one area in airlines remaining profitable, international travel. I have flown on several Chinese airlines, and the flight attendants are friendly, the cabins are clean, and the overall experience is much better. First class doesn't cost four times the amount of coach flights either.

Earnings Preview: Delta Air Lines Reports Third Quarter Results Tuesday - Seeking Alpha

Ohh and BTW... Look at this revenue growth... I think we should get a chunk of that!!!

 

Here you go...

 

We need more than that gloopy. Since "meet and confer" is part of an agreed to settlement of the Ford-Cooksey lawsuit, there is absolutely no reason for those required proceedings to not be recorded and transcribed. The moment our opener is exchanged with management, those transcripts should be released to the members so we can see EXACTLY what was said and by whom. This would give us all the transparency we need to see EXACTLY what meet and confer really means.

Standing by for the analogies of:

1. We can't do that, it would be like showing our hand in poker.
2. We can't do that, because we don't want management to know what was said (or our members).
3. We can't do that because.....

Carl

 

Wow Alfa, you’re very touchy about this. So I assume you don’t want a limit to how long any pilot can be off line before they lose their seniority number but I am curious as to why?

And accusing me of deflection? I'd accuse you of not reading well, you got the part I do want MEC members to rotate back to the line but you forgot the part I highlighted in red:

So, again, why do you Alfa not think there should be a limit for any pilot to be away from the line before they are no longer pilots? Or I guess for you, why this limit shouldn't apply to union folks?

I mean do you like the notion someone could camp out off line and wait until their seniority is much better before they return? Or they couldn't hack it on the line or wanted off the line as soon as they could because frankly flying ain't there thing? Or they just simply have no intention of returning, albeit for family or personal reasons or maybe the money is better? But why allow any pilots in management, the union or training to operate under the banner they are a pilot if they are long since removed and out of touch with the average line pilot's life?

I mean turnover rates can be whatever they are in all three of those areas, doesn't matter to me, I just want it in writing in case someone is contemplating a life outside the line but wants to retain the seniority number "just in case" or for some other bogus reason then they should be forced to be what they really want to be- a former Delta pilot.

So stop deflecting and answer, why are you against a simple limit?

And btw if flying the line is so much greater than union work, where is Lee Moak right now? He's not flying jets for DAL anymore is he? I mean pardon the masses for wondering sometimes if the goal of going to DALPA is to get a job in Herndon. But no worries, I think I made it clear from my post I want this uniformly applied to all pilots not just the union.

 

Thankyou Capt'n C!

 

Superb points...every single one.

Carl