Nope...never posted on PPRNer or pprune.

Carl

Carl, I agree if it sucks has a scope sale and a large raise with a promise of more mainline flying and new hired it is going to take a lot of ppl to unify and vote no. Let's see what they deliver.

OK, I can see that now.

One degree at a time Carl, one degree at a time.

Carl

Quote from Baja:

Release of Scope is a NO for me...add me to the list of non-budgers! And if Hawaiian or AK is in the mix for a merger there better not be ONE guy hired after me senior or another NO vote (not that I'll have a choice - just sayin')
Baja.



Baja,

That is how most of us on this forum feel but what does that mean? Our Scope currently sucks. Would allowing 20 more 76 seaters and getting rid of 200 50 seaters along with more restrictions on Alaska count as a Scope concession or a Scope tightening?




[QUOTE=Sink r8;1177122]I suspect they'll frame the discussion about Scope in terms of the complete package. IOW, they'll tighten a bunch of things, from 50-seaters to WB, and offer some concessions on some 76 seaters.


I'm open to looking at Section 1 as a package. If we could get a much lower hard cap on the total number of RJ's, a minimum (and improved) ratio of block hours between us and the regionals, eliminate the [bleep] 3:1 ratio, eliminate the add-and-subtract loophole, get strong % in JV's, and future JV's, I would keep an open mind.


Guys,

Like Baja I would love to say not 1 more 76 seater, but on the other hand Sink makes a lot of sense. And what if we get that but the company gets 90 seat turboprops? Or Alaska Scope continues as is, and eventually screws other bases like LAX and SEA are currently being shafted?

This issue is very complicated. We could very well give up a few more 76 seaters and have a much improved overall Scope section.

Or we could give up a few more 76 seaters and think we have a much improved Scope section and get shafted in a few years.

One thing is for sure - our section 1 sucks. We need to vastly improve it at all levels - DCI, Alaska, JVs, COdeshares etc. This will all affect us not just DCI - although I think DCI has done the most damage to our careers so far.

And one more thing - there may be 100 frequent posters on this forum out of 12,000 DAL Pilots. Guess what came up first in the contract survey? Pay, followed by pay, followed closely by pay again, with Scope and retirement way behind. Not everyone is as concerned about Scope as us.

Scoop

I'm just going to interview in my Comair uniform.

O'Malley's letter sounds pretty ominous for the scope hawks among us.
Creating a sense of urgency and saying that this opportunity is "fleeting", etc. etc. makes it seem like they are preparing us for some significant concessions.
I'm suspicious about this "hurry up, do it fast" climate. I hope management is not just firing their guns in the air and stampeding our guys.


O'Malley would do well to re-read his last letter. I liked it better.

We believe opportunities exist—right now—to reach a comprehensive agreement on an expedited timeline, but let me make this point perfectly clear. While we will attempt to expedite the process, we will not compromise the product.

Scoop, you are correct. Section1 is about not just small jets but all of our flying. As it stands now we have a ton of holes. Remember the republic holdings mess anyone? Hole. ALK? Hole Virgin Australlia soon to be jv does not need a production balances. Hole. JV with JAL that is revenue sharing and will not need a production balance? Hole. DAL could add 100717"s get the 76 seat jete, then park the 88's or717's and not reducing the 76 seaters? Hole.

Point is section 1 needs a lot of improving. This stuff is a must. Is allowing more large rj's but getting a production balance a concession? Depends on the actual wording of the TA and how and when they can be added. In the end the answer is different for many of us. I will wait to judge the actual product.

Again give input to your reps,now! As Buzz stated go to the PUB events. then make a up down decision on the actual agreement.

I still think this place gets really sporty after this agreement gets signed.

An agreement with a loss of scope is bad enough, but there are people who will get "bought off" if the price is right. That's ok...everyone has their own priorities (but you won't catch me drinking with them).

That said, those people have some pretty high hopes for a big payday. I don't think the money offered will be enough.

Might make for some wiggle room between strange bedfellows.

Nu

Delta CEO sees pay package rise 10 percent
From Associated Press
April 27, 2012 8:33 PM EDT

ATLANTA (AP) — Delta Air Lines Inc.'s chief executive, Richard Anderson, received a 10 percent raise in his pay package in 2011, a year when the company's stock price fell by more than a third.

I think he's established the absolute minimum.

You mean an absolute minimum increase of "more than a third" in pay rates and a "10 percent" decrease in 76 seat RJ flying not flown by Delta pilots, right?