Although the bus is wider, more ergonomic and barks like a dog.

 

I just got this from my C1 Reps - outstanding update These guys get what a union is about. They are still learning to spell it in ATL.

I am furious about the JS change, and called my Reps and apparently there are unanswered questions and contractual implications with this. Every commuter should contact their Reps and voice their concerns. This is a BIG deal if you commute

************************************************

Council 1 Update April 3, 2012

MEC Touch and GOs 12-03

A Touch and Gos communication entitled “Strategic Update, Contract 2012, Taking Advantage of an Opportunity” from the MEC Communications Committee was published this week. We have received more than our share of calls and e-mails from you asking some very good questions and voicing your concerns with the current process.

As your reps we agree with many of your comments when it comes to the statements on the NMB. The MEC has taken the NMB and its role in our contract into consideration. Your Council 1 reps feel that even though the NMB must be considered, it is currently premature to discuss its role in the depth it has been at this point in the process. Yes, other carriers are having their issues, and American is a good example of how not to do it. Exploiting that fact at our current position in the negotiating time line is more in line with fear-mongering, in our opinion.

Your reps, along with those from other bases, voiced concerns over this and other issues in the original draft of the Touch and Gos. The majority of the MEC apparently approved of the original draft, as the Touch and Gos went out with some of our concerns addressed, while others remained basically unchanged. Your Council 1 reps feel it is more important to convey the issue at hand, and that was simply stated in the title of the Touch and Gos: “Taking Advantage of an Opportunity.” As we live under the same contract, your reps desire the same things that you do: to increase our wages, achieve better work rules, create jobs at the mainline, and do so in a timely manner.

Many of you have asked why now, why the expedited process? The answer is Delta Air Lines wants to continue its position as the leader in the industry, and with this goal Delta is willing to open the contract and negotiate in an expedited manner. The value that Delta will gain in maintaining its continued position in the industry is the value we as pilots must share in with contractual improvements. Your MEC collectively has tasked the Negotiating Committee with achieving contractual improvements that lead the industry in the same manner as our employer, Delta Air Lines, leads the industry. Your reps wholeheartedly endorse this expedited route, as it most likely will lead to contractual improvements sooner rather than later. The best part of this approach is that if these improvements are not achieved, or either the MEC or the majority of the line pilots do not endorse those placed before us, the process does not end. Certainly another attempt with an alternate approach would be in order; at the very least our Section 6 is now open. The only way we will close our Section 6 negotiations is after we have improvements to our pay and working conditions that lead the industry.

Pilot Survey on Delta Net

Many of you have asked us about the current survey from the company that can be found on Delta Net. You have asked about the security of your responses, as the survey is conducted by Survey Monkey. If you have read the privacy policy on the Survey Monkey website, it does in fact state that it is the client who owns and manages the survey responses. It also states that Survey Monkey does collect the IP address and browser type of each responder. It further states that the IP address will be linked with your response unless the survey creator has disabled IP address collection data.

Your reps asked our MEC administration if they could confirm that the company would not use the IP address to determine who was replying to the survey. We were pointed in the direction of the Weekly Update on Friday, March 30, from Flight Operations. In the update it states, “The survey is completely anonymous.” As of this writing, that is the best we can offer. We continue to ask for a more definitive statement.

Jumpseat Issues

Recent changes to the Jumpseat policy in the FOM section 4.3 states: A jumpseat rider who is issued a boarding pass for a cabin seat instead of a boarding pass for the jumpseat will be considered to be a non-revenue passenger and non-revenue procedures will apply. There is no need to check-in with the Captain. This new language is not in keeping with current industry standards or FAA/TSA interpretations with regard to accessing any part of the aircraft via the initial intent of occupying the flight deck jumpseat. Your reps have several questions and are working with the MEC administration and Jumpseat Committee on clarification. Our questions are, but not limited to:

If you are now a non-rev, does your company seniority apply for cabin seating as a jumpseater is placed last on the cabin seating list?
The intended purpose of a jumpseater is to increase safety. If a captain doesn’t even know you are in the cabin, how can a jumpseater be utilized in a safety role? The recent JetBlue incident is a prime example on why we think the flight crew should know if there are any able crewmembers on board the aircraft and where they are seated.
If a jumpseater becomes classified as a non-rev, are they still vetted via CASS in the event they are required on the flight deck?
What is the overall effect on Captain’s authority on their aircraft?
If a jumpseater is placed on the non-rev status, do they no longer fall under the jumpseat rules?
Why is an FFDO required to check in with the captain and not all jumpseaters?

As the answers to these questions are still a work in progress with the Company, we will keep you updated on the outcome. In the meantime, if you are a jumpseater, please abide by all the rules we are accustomed to, including introducing yourself to the captain and asking for a ride. Also, we know not all jumpseaters are Delta mainline, so please keep an eye out for possible jumpseaters and, if boarded, make an attempt to determine their cabin location.

Council 1 Rep Schedules

In an attempt to offer more transparency, we are placing our schedules in the proximity of the updates and ALPA communications. All of these items are found on the bulletin boards in international flight planning near the CPO, and in the pilot lounge below the “F” gates. You can always look at our schedules in I/E crew in the comfort of your layover hotel if you prefer. You will also note that the MEC is publishing our “total” pay hours on the MEC web page. The “total” hour report does not break out FPL that is either pilot-supported through your dues or “24.J” that is contractually paid by the company.

Guam and your ID

Flying to Guam (GUM)? ALPA has received reports that Delta crewmembers have been temporarily detained by Guam (GUM) International Airport security authorities for not properly displaying company IDs. As per Delta Flight Operations Crew Layover Information, available via iCrew, crews must display the Crew ID on the outermost garment at all times in order to comply with Guam Airport security procedures. This applies to even the nonsecure areas of the airport. Simply stated: in GUM and in uniform, display your ID no matter what your location in the airport.

Fraternally,

 

Typically they are over - insured. They might turn a significant profit, or at least get underwriters to eat some of their capex.

If we had known, we could have scrambled the 50 seat fleet to DFW ... rapido! undele! AHORA!

 

Wow! I take it she's OK??

Carl

 

Bar,

That's a great pitch for a new episode of "Storm Chasers!" "Starring a CRJ200, coming to an airport near you!" (Would it be too obvious, after a while, that we were repositioning these types of jets in the path of building storms?)

GJ

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/storm-chasers/

 

Carl, thanks for the concern. She is fine but shaken up. So far no fatalities in the DFW event.

 

No, here is why your mythical friend was upset. He was upset because whether the opener was conceptual or not didn't change the fact that even the "concept" was incredibly weak. Example for scope: improve production balances. That statement is terribly weak even if we win it. We need to reverse scope by the end of this process. You don't do that by not mentioning any reversal. You do that by opening big, then negotiating down from there. An example of big would be: SWAPA scope language in its entirety.

Read above.

Again, read the above. The fake opener that was only released to the pilots was weak. Since most negotiations end up with results significantly less than your opening position, this does not bode well. That's what your mythical friend was trying to tell you.

Carl

 

It's an important distinction in your discussion with your mythical friend. You inferred that the MEC had been telling us all along that we would be getting a "conceptual" opener. And that your mythical friend didn't understand this "fact", then complained about how weak the opener looked...because he didn't bother to read the MEC's long-standing warnings that the opener would be conceptual. That's simply not true.

Carl

 

Never said that or even inferred that. Is lying the only way you can make a point?

Simple question: Does an LEC chairman have any function on the MEC?

Carl

 

Inferred or stated no such thing. I never once stated the union communication had "history" of informing the group it'd be a conceptual opener. Show me where you understood that I said that.

Stop adding words Carl. I never once said that it was "long-standing warnings" from the union. (Quite unbecoming that you're making stuff up.)

The only "fact", that I eluded to in my example, was that my friend hadn't read the "Negotiator's Notepad". His disappointment in the opener was because he hadn't realized it was different than the opener the company received.

GJ