I fail to see how these two are related.

 

No, that sure isn't a good idea. But it'll be critical for you to stand strong and vote NO Brocc. You and every pilot on the bottom half of the seniority list need to vote NO if this is what the MEC ends up ratifying. If 100% of the bottom half votes NO, then it's NO...because you've definitely got my NO vote here from the top half.

Carl

 

The reps weren't doing that. I asked them how they would vote on a TA that included such a provision after negotiations are complete and a TA was produced.

Carl

 

This is a great illustration of what I also discussed with these three reps. After they gave me their current positions on how they would vote for a TA that contained such provisions, I asked them about how they would handle the pressure from the MEC administrators if they voted NO. They each relayed specific and personal examples of it in their careers in DALPA. One was exactly what 76drvr states here. It was: "If you vote NO on this, you'll be showing disunity amongst the MEC and that will damage us in the eyes of management. They will exploit any weakness that is perceived amongst the MEC. Plus, how can you turn your back on the negotiators after you voted each and every one of them in?" The MEC bureaucrats and 76drvr believe that a rep must back the negotiators.

Another example was one of having the "big arm" put around you. Example: LEC rep of a small base that is constantly under threat of being closed is told, "Don't worry man. Show us some unity here on the MEC and we'll make sure your guys (and you) are well taken care of when the company decides to pull the trigger and close your base." This rep told me that he replied: "I'll demand you do everything for my guys regardless of how I vote on anything."

Sorry for being too wordy, but it's just so illustrative of the different pressures our LEC reps are under. They have the pressure from us members, then there's the pressure from the MEC bureaucrats as so well stated by 76drvr.

Carl

 

They are totally unrelated. But management is trying very hard to conflate the two.

Carl

 

Management can add 115 seat a/c anytime they want. No any relaxation of scope period, if anything I am looking at reducing the number of RJ's.

 

Carl, that's a lot of conspiracy theorizing. It's really quite simple. Some reps made a big fuss about their desire not to have a negotiator election. They were on the forum and in their own council communiques politicking against having a negotiator election. That wasn't the administration, that was a few councils. They wanted these guys bad and vouched for them. They even called for a special MEC meeting, which we all had to pay for, in order to thwart any attempt to hold elections. It's really just a side bar issue. I'm curious to see if the same reps who vouched for our negotiators will support what the negotiators produce.

 

They can keep the amount of RJs... they can even increase them and have as many as they want. They just need to (have to) be flown by Delta pilots.

Anderson prefers to have experienced Delta pilots up front per his brief at the Aviation summit. He needs to be held to that statement.

 

Not only that, but there is no such thing as language "airtight" enough to insure they would be permanent growth as well as guarantee a "snapback" of RJ's. The company would squeal that they entered into long term contracts with trillion dollar penalties for breaking them, etc, just like they are doing now in claims that they "need" more large RJ's.

Not to mention more large RJ's have NOTHING to do with DL getting 717's.

Nice try scope gutters, but we'll take traditional section 6 is this is your idea of "opportunity".

 

I was responding to Free Bird, who wanted the reps to publicly disclose their position during negotiations. I believe there are possibly too many issues at play for that type of public statement and that most reps wouldn't make public statements during negotiations. Sorry for the confusion.