|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1177411)
I'm with ACL, if there is a deal we will look at it and discuss it on its merits. That should not be interpreted to mean that a single additional outsourced jet will be accepted. These airplanes can be flown by Delta seniority list pilots.
You have no idea the strength of our resolve. Our pilots are better educated than they have ever been. There are more of us. The Northwest guys, God love 'em, are willing to speak up. If ALPA wants to keep working for us, we must be treated with respect. That means every single pilot ... if one pilot has a problem, we all have a problem. ... and Delta management has got to understand this as well. The NWA guys struck. Our current pilot group will strike over the continued outsourcing of our jobs. Carl |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1177448)
First off, if the Negotiating Team has been sequesterd, how do YOU know they haven't yet discussed Scope and Pay?
Second, we need to be calling our Reps NOW, because when the Negotiating Team brings it to them for a Vote, they need to shoot it down at that level. Once the MEC ratifies a T/A, then sends it on to us, it's too late. There are far too many sheeple who will vote Yes to what ever the MEC has ratified, and the excuse they always use is, "Well, they know more than I do, (because I was too lazy to stay informed and involved, or even show up, to a LEC meeting, or...etc.) and who am I to contradict them? I have been hearing these same lame excuses ever since we got membership ratification in POS 1996. We need to encourage everyone we fly with to call their LEC Reps. NOW, and tell them there is NO WAY we will allow MORE, and/or bigger, RJ's on the property, unless they are flown by Delta Pilots, on one list, on one contract. Once the MEC ratifies it, it's over. I'm calling my rep today, how about you? My first question is going to be, "WTFARK was O'Mally talking about? Spell it out for me, because he's being very vague." Carl |
I have a question, if a TA is on the way, what's the hurry?
And why should I or we be in a hurry? |
I agree with Flyz, we're kind of rumored out.
This is all stemming from Tim's letter. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1177392)
Scope and Pay have not even been discussed.
They also said that no two-year extension was being discussed, that it was a full 5-year Section 6. Of course things can change in a month. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1177411)
The DPA has never been something anyone other than a small handful of pilots support.
If these carefully worded "must act now" updates turn out to be a scope sale you can expect to see the numbers go Sailing through what it will take for a vote to dismember and forever cast out the morons who thought they could slide another scope sale across our desk using all their psychobabble and salesmanship. |
Originally Posted by Thrust Normal
(Post 1177459)
Hello all, a quick dh question if I may. I have a spill trip with a red-eye dh on the first. My plan is to deviate on the 30th. First, you don't lose any credit hours on a deviate, right. And second, does the credit still pays like a normal spill trip since I'm backed deviating on the 30th rather than deadheading on the first.
Thanks The only difference is per diem stops as soon as you deviate. |
My thesis: The purpose of O'Malley's letter is to begin the process of getting us to accept the idea of more 76 seat jets. That is a 100% guarantee. There is no possibility that our TA will keep the 76 seat limit where it is or reduce it. No possibility. It will also contain a provision that demands a reduction in those new 76 seat aircraft if mainline aircraft disappear.
My prediction of the LEC reps' votes: The LEC reps will ratify it and send it on to the members by a small majority. My prediction of the members' votes: The members vote it in by a small majority. The result: Company brings on more mainline aircraft, purchases more 76 seaters and hires lots of pilots. The older mainline aircraft then start to disappear due to age and other reasons. The new 76 seaters DO NOT go away. DALPA comes to us and says: "Look guys, the company spent billions on those 76 seaters. If we force them to park these new aircraft, it will damage the company and hurt our ability to make gains in the next contract. We're in the right, and will probably win in arbitration...but you can never be sure. Let's keep the company profitable and go after them big time with our next negotiations." The result: DALPA fears members will scuttle the plan and signs off on an LOA without MEMRAT to allow parking of the older mainline aircraft while keeping the additional 76 seaters. Company wins chess match, while we continue to play checkers. The one way to stop this scenario from playing out: vote NO on any TA that allows the company even ONE more 76 seat jet. Carl |
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 1177456)
What you are saying is very reasonable and stands as a good backdrop. It is also reasonable that people feel ALPA is going to mess this up. Their track record is far from stellar and their poor historical performance has created reasonable expectations for continued mediocrity. To back up their frustrations, we hear the insiders managing expectations and slow playing in a time when the company is profitable and we should be expecting the best. If this is not the time to get a contract that is positive in every single category, then there will never be a right time.
BTW, just wrote my Rep a long email. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1177478)
I have a question, if a TA is on the way, what's the hurry?
And why should I or we be in a hurry? Because it is a: http://www.itsnotbadatall.com/i/funp...Time_Offer.jpg Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:21 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands