An accurate and important point.

Please PM me your facts, or if you'd prefer you can e-mail them to our code-share commitee chairman. His address is on the DALPA website under commitees.

1. There still is some question on whether the E-175 gross weights have been modified on the Shuttle America aircraft, but we've yet to hear/read/see DALPA respond or seek answers via chairman's letter, code-a-phone, blastmail, etc.

2.The grievance settlement wasn't as good as I'd hoped, but the longer I've thought about it the more I feel it was on the reasonable side (barely).

3. Corporate lawyers will find ways to "structure" the deal differently, just give it time......

How soon until we are told that "we need large jet, non-hub international flying by our connection carriers, it is good for Delta Pilots because it makes more money for DAL that we can get our next contract......United and British Airways are doing it already, we need to allow it to stay competitive....."


Decreasing the scope of an agreement defeats the purpose of ever having written one.

It also defeats the purpose to NOT try to EXPAND the scope of an agreement. Whether its from the top OR bottom, it's the same argument, it just doesn't seem to matter if you aren't on the part of the list that would be affected.......

1. The agreement is memorialized in the settlement language for the grievance (a legal document).

2. Any documentation that the E175's flown by RAH are certificated for a higher weight? I know it's a question with a question, but the placards on the aircraft are compliant and management said the mods were turned off. We know that SA's OpSpecs were not changed.

There is no agreement not to operate at the higher weight or any other scope modification done here. It is my understanding they're either in compliance or not. We believe them to be in compliance.

Like Bar said, the weight increases can be done with a SB. I am not sure if there is a SB to undo that service bulletin. Some of us are looking in to that. There are SA pilots that have told us that the weights were placarded up and then return to the previous weights.

Not depending on the number on the bottom of that placard, the placard itself does not mean that the said weights were the certified weights of that specific aircraft.
For example EV adopted a flap extension speed of 215 KIAS vs 230KIAS due to multiple flap issues. It was more restrictive, so they put a placard in the jets that stated this. They never changed any of the certification on any jet.
I am curious if the same is trying to be done here. The jet can fly to 89K but they are putting a more restrictive limit on it.
I am not sure we can believe what SA tells us.

Come on SLOW. It was a generalization. That is what lawyers do. They look for loopholes.
I know that a UAL-AL deal cannot go on here. I am worried about the continued outsourcing of the DC-9 sized lift.
We can operate that here at mainline. There is no need to keep shrinking our membership base to the lowest bidder.

On June 8, 2009, the Personnel & Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") determined that Delta will not provide any tax reimbursements for post-separation perquisites to persons who are first elected officers of Delta, or members of the Board of Directors of Delta, on or after June 8, 2009.

This little tidbit was filed today with the DAL 8K.

From experience - you can not believe a word they say, or write.

As for operating the aircraft with restrictions more limiting than the Certification basis, you are exactly correct. Airlines do that all the time and that is one reason why the limitations you memorize, may, or may not, match the placards or indications.

The SB could not be stopped in mid progress. The airplane either conforms to one standard, or the other.

The problem with the E170 and our scope is that Embraer will gladly make you a version "Certified" to whatever limits you care to dream up. They've got several versions and notice that their standard version is heavier than most of the scope limits. They cut back the limits on request and the FAA rubber stamps the lower limits as "economic" limits that are not even considered an Airworthiness matter.

Anyone notice Boyd's HotFlash today? I think he's pretty much on target for this fall and Q1 2010.

Well Slowplay, thanks for the response. I'll chew on it for a while. I do appreciate your input. A couple of quick thoughts at the end of a long day:

1. Perhaps part of the problem is that our union reps all know what they discuss behind closed doors, but it just doesn't seem that we receive that much communications on the "small" Section 1 victories.

2. Perhaps a larger victory on Section 1 would relieve much anxiety in the pilot group. You must understand the trend vector that we have all seen over the last ten years. It's very disconcerting when I consider my future earnings at Delta Air Lines. I really don't think I will breath a sigh of relief until a replacement has been ordered for the DC-9 and is coming to mainline. The problem with this is that I really don't want the company spending much money on new aircraft until we start to see some positive movement in the economic recovery.

I will be moving back to the East Coast within the next year. My plans are to be involved in my union. I'm not a political person by nature, but I feel strongly enough about our profession that I will be involved and on some level, I will have a voice.

Thanks again Slowplay! Have a good evening.

Respectfully,

TC