Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-01-2012 | 12:50 PM
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: DAL
Like your "fact" that a guy with two weeks' vacation will have a 140 raw score? 
Anyway, it's an anonymous web board (and subject to declining participation). Nothing more. There is no "burden of proof."
Folks are welcome to take or leave what they see here, without contributors being beaten about the head and shoulders by overzealous mods such as yourself.
Anyway, it's an anonymous web board (and subject to declining participation). Nothing more. There is no "burden of proof."
Folks are welcome to take or leave what they see here, without contributors being beaten about the head and shoulders by overzealous mods such as yourself.
04-01-2012 | 01:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
This post is mostly my opinion.
I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term.
I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term.
04-01-2012 | 01:02 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Nevermind..........
Last edited by johnso29; 04-01-2012 at 01:49 PM.
04-01-2012 | 01:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: A big one that looks like a little one
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits.
Carl
04-01-2012 | 01:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1
From: FO
Oh I agree, I was merely pointing out the rate was incorrect. I still fly a 76 seat RJ for DCI and we are woefully underpaid and would rather these be flown at mainline.
04-01-2012 | 01:42 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits.
Carl
Carl
Generally, the first instruction any lawyer is going to give you is to not talk about the case with anyone. So can we assume that it was the pilot that was not paying attention that discussed the supposed conversation regarding the ALPA attorney's responsibilities? The best advice you can pass to the friend of the friend is to stop talking, and listen to the professionals.
04-01-2012 | 01:47 PM
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
After reading ALPA's section 1 opener again, I would like to quote myself and stand by the above. Section 1 says we want to "improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI." This means we could allow the company to replace 50 seaters with 76 seaters as long as the ratio is less 76 seaters coming on line than 50 seaters going off line. It also says that we want to "expand furlough protection to include all pilots on date of signing related to permitted 76-seat jets." We are in trouble. I am under the impression that ALPA does not care how much flying is outsourced as long as we do not furlough. In 5 years, furloughing is off the table due to the retirements. In the mean time we could stagnate forever.
04-01-2012 | 02:05 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
After reading ALPA's section 1 opener again, I would like to quote myself and stand by the above. Section 1 says we want to "improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI." This means we could allow the company to replace 50 seaters with 76 seaters as long as the ratio is less 76 seaters coming on line than 50 seaters going off line. It also says that we want to "expand furlough protection to include all pilots on date of signing related to permitted 76-seat jets." We are in trouble. I am under the impression that ALPA does not care how much flying is outsourced as long as we do not furlough. In 5 years, furloughing is off the table due to the retirements. In the mean time we could stagnate forever.
Ultimately, the reps can vote to NOT ratify the scope cave-in that the MEC will most certainly produce. It will be extremely hard for the reps to do that because many of them will have never seen the kind of pressure that an MEC and ALPA national can put on them. But if we all hound the living daylights out of our reps, it might give them the spine they need to not ratify the TA. It's our only shot now.
Carl
04-01-2012 | 02:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
You guys are killing me.....
04-01-2012 | 02:19 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
