As with everything, what they printed was factually correct. They were not trending the number of A seats, just one bid to the next.

Go look at our ASM's from 2008-2009 to now.

You know what really irks me? When people are surprised when something like LGA happens. It is legal by our PWA, and until guys "Get Religion" wrt to scope, they are always going to be surprised when the company does something they are totally within their contractual bounds to do. Only way to fix it is to fix the PWA, and until we stop looking at pay over scope, nothing will change. Period.

 

Yes, indeed, and considering that a majority of the lost Capt seats come from our highest paying categories, it's not a junior pilots' dilemma.

I am still surprised at the announcement, mainly because the company seems to be making sound operational and marketing decisions lately, and this is like 2000 all over again. For the company to use the excuse that they need to develop markets--- from LGA--- that have been well served over the years by AA and USair, sounds disingenuous. I am as concerned for our business customers as I am at the lost opportunity for mainline growth.

 

Interesting guess on your part, but the truth is that we'll NEVER know. The meetings will not be recorded or transcripted, and we Delta pilots will NEVER know what was said in those meetings that dealt with OUR opener regarding Scope.


Totally incorrect. The policy manual changes are the result of a lawsuit. That lawsuit claimed ALPA was hurting regional scope by protecting mainline scope. The meet/confer language is there to protect EVERYONE'S Scope...which is of course impossible...which is of course the textbook definition of a conflict of interest.

Since the Ford-Cooksey settlement, this is going to be the first instance that I'm aware of. But since the meetings and Moak's actions will NOT be recoreded in any way, we'll never know what went on and to what extent the ALPA president and our regional competitors influenced our Scope opener.

As I mentioned earlier to acl, we do have one powerful tool remaining. And that is to vote NO on the TA if it doesn't reign in Scope. It will be tough because ALPA will pull out all the stops with scare tactics like you've never believed possible, but it's the one tool that scares them the most. Especially with another union waiting in the wings.

Carl

 

They are probably only looking at corp. sales, and will reroute all the misconnects and lost bags through ATL.

 

He made it to National president by getting the majority votes of the regionals. Don't forget that.

We're not talking about vetoing a PWA...yet. We're talking about the ALPA president's role of inserting himself if there is NOT agreement on OUR scope opener by us AND our regional competitors. That's the way the new policy language works. And we'll never know what occured in those talks or what Moak's influence was. It's secret. We can only guess what it was when we see our TA for the first time.

I think Moak's strategy here has been quite clear as long as you understand that the prime directive is to ensure ALPA's survival. The strategy is to ensure ALPA is the single bargaining agent for all airline pilots. Eliminating competition ensures ALPA's survival. Moak is willing to take a short term reduction in total dues if it means increased membership and complete market control. Problem is, that means more scope erosion for us. That's why we will have to fight our own union every bit as hard as management for any gains in scope. Bank on it.

Carl

 

Carl, I agree that we can vote No, and I am willing and ready to if scope is not fixed in a way that makes us part of the decision process on every deal.

We need that board seat, and we got it, and we need to make the company get our approval for every deal that puts any flying off of our list. We just need to demand it.

 

No, not 2000. They just did not place an order for 642 RJ's like they did back then. They just took the aircraft that they were under utilizing, and moved them to LGA. That is the problem with these CPA's, they have floors and they have to use these darn jets until they can get our of the agreements.

It is the same reason we will see 50 seaters in MEM, and that DAL will string that hub along until they can get out from underneath them.

 

Given the importance of DT as it relates to safety, I am very surprised by your response.

As frequent memos have been reminding us, the taxi phase is the most perilous. The different rules, frequent construction and taxi schemes employed at various airports make driving a truck comparatively easy.

 

If that is brought to this pilot group to vote on, then I expect a resignation of the committee and members that approved it in the first place. PERIOD!

 

Absolutely incorrect. If we don't agree with our regional competitors on what is in OUR scope opener, the ALPA president becomes directly involved. All of it completely hidden from us. All of it. That's what the language says.

That is pure speculation on your part. This will be the first full-scale test of it that I'm aware of in a Section 6. And we'll not be privy to what was said in any meetings, or what Moak's actions were.

Absolutely incorrect. The ALPA president MUST insert himself in the process if our regional competitors don't agree with what we want to put into OUR scope opener. And we will never know what Moak's influence was. It's all secret.

Carl