And where did you get that info?

That pretty much sums up why ALPA is off the property if the TA comes back with any scope sellouts whatsoever.

[QUOTE=gloopy;1169822]Here's where we, as high minded, intelligent, type A personality, ridiculously good looking pilot types tend to step on our own tails.

Theoretically what you said, in its entirety, could be interpreted as a net positive.

BUT!!!!<—there's a very big but here though



Gloopy,

Don't misunderstand me - I don't even take it as a net positive. Even if it was truly 100% net positive today - what would it be in two or three years down the road?

Something is up with Scope, I don't know what it is, but I am sure we will all find out soon enough. We definitely need to improve our Scope and that is the problem. Some things are obvious improvements but others are in the eye of the beholder and that will be tricky.

Is 10 more 76 seaters allowed with 100 Fifty seaters parked - good or bad? Some will say its good, others will say Fifty seaters are going away anyway. Is that selling Scope? What are we buying Scope with - other Scope? What if DCI departures go from 45% (theoretical) domestic to 25% but we allow them to convert some 70 seaters to 76 seats?

You say that if we agree to sell Scope we just have to settle on a price - and I agree with you on that. What I am unsure of is Scope for Scope is indeed selling Scope. Like I said I don't have the answers to these questions but as a narrow body FO I am very concerned and have attended a PUB event (SAN) and e-mailed my Reps - as we all should do.

DALPA will probably come to us with some sort of deal on Scope - it may be good, it may be great (doubtful), it may be foolish and imprudent but something is brewing.

Scoop

My suggestion is to look past seat size and see the numbers management uses in their evaluations, cost per seat mile. (ask the Company, or ALPA, if you don't agree with the numbers I have posted) These are potentially 757 replacements. It would be a mistake to allow more of these fourth gen jets to be outsourced.

We have good guys on our NC and good Reps. Sending in a DPA card undermines their work. Thus, it isn't an action a "scope hawk" would take.

If it is necessary to attempt to "undo" a TA, then it will be time to send in a card for a representational election. Understand clearly that is the first step towards becoming US Air. That's a very severe, desperate, measure. We are not there and I don't think we are going there.

It is headed to Roswell, NM next. Does that mean it is being laid to rest, or has it been purchased by aliens?

Aviation Daily

Break over?

Back to the salt mines!:D

It does no such thing. If anything, it enhances their work because it's not the NC or the reps I'm worried about. I worry about the MEC bureaucrats that were not elected by the LEC members, but work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. I worry about "the arm" being put around the NC guys. I want the NC to worry more about the existential threat that DPA represents if the NC loses its spine.

It is precisely what a "scope hawk" should do. But since you're a "my union right or wrong" kind of guy, you wouldn't understand.

Carl

[QUOTE=Scoop;1169831]Here's the deal with scope IMO. It IS black or white. There is no shade of gray. Why?

Because ANY promise of, or positive change to, the contract, can be changed later to a negative WITHOUT memrat.

It is with this thought process that I am mindful of any change to scope...Now don't get me wrong, what appears to be a positive change (when you read it) will be exploited by the company to be potentially a bad thing for us...There is NO ironclad scope language short of SWA scope, and we can be pretty sure that is not coming our way.

Bar,

I am of the mind that competition is good. I personally have noticed an improvement in DALPA since the DPA move started and I think they got a wake up call with how many card were sent in and perhaps upped their game. I do not necessarily advocate replacing DALPA, in fact I trust my Reps and think they do a good job. On the other hand I also think this is now pretty much an academic argument since we are in section 6 with DALPA in charge - thats OK with me.

If on the other hand as you say above outsourcing 4th generation jets would be a big mistake (I agree) - Do you think DALPA would be more or less aggressive resisting more outsourcing since the DPA became an issue?


Scoop