|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1180854)
One way to look at the "scope must stand on it's own comment is", I don't care what you offer in Section 3 to get me to move on Section 1. Or Section 2, 4, 5, 6,...
Section 3 doesn't matter if I lose my job. |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1180767)
Carl,
Since I normally don't agree with you, I am going to ask you, with all due respect, how you interpret the above bold text. I received the same letter. I happen to be not such a "glass half empty" type of guy. First, as stated above, it was communicated to C20 members that "SCOPE MUST STAND ON IT'S OWN. IT MUST BE AN IMPROVEMENT". My interpretation of that communication is that we "reel scope back in". How else can scope be "improved" if we don't regain what was previously lost? Secondly, it's stated again that "IMPROVEMENTS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE PWA CANNOT OVERCOME A REDUCTION IN SCOPE PROTECTION". Again, as I mentioned above, how do you interpret the statement of, "other areas ..... cannot overcome a reduction in scope protection"? Thanks, GJ Section I is about much more than RJs, though one of the goals of our contract opener is to “improve the balance of flying between Delta and DCI”. This is what troubles me. ALL the reps and the MEC bureaucrats are using this EXACT same terminology. It's very careful to NEVER mention anything about holding the line on more larger RJ's or even reducing them. To me, that negates all the rest. It does so because it buys into the premise of "neutral negotiations", i.e., anything we gain must be offset by a give back. That's wrong. Negotiations is about making improvements that your company can afford and is within the realm of reasonable as compared to your competitors. There's nothing wrong with asking for reducing large RJ's AND improving JV's and code share. Our company can afford it and it's still worse than SWAPA's scope. The use of the term "improving the balance of flying" is simply not needed...unless you know you're trying to hide the truth from your members. Hide it that is, until you dump it on their laps with the threat of mass resignations if they don't rubber stamp what their union has done. If that's your plan, then using these weasel words is a necessity. Carl |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1180814)
Scoop,
Thank you for the explanation. I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.) RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month. Fly safe, GJ Carl |
Carl,
Thanks for the explanation. I agree, this is a "make or break" contract for not only us, but the industry/profession as a whole. We lose this, we've lost maybe another ten years. GJ |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1180809)
GJ,
The answer to your question is simple - Scope improvements will all come via tradeoffs within section 1. Theoretically, Scope will not be sourced as a "bill payer" to fund other contractual improvements. When you consider that Scope covers DCI, Joint Ventures, Code-sharing, alliances and whatever other term you can think of to describe what it actually is........... Outsourcing, it becomes easier to visualize. So saying Scope will stand on its own does not mean we will hold the line at 255 large RJs at all, it means if you consider all of section 1, it will be improved. Say for example (hypothetical numbers) that Delta Pilots currently fly 55% of the passengers who buy a Delta ticket. If under the new TA we increase that to 60% or 65% we have improved Scope. Here is the catch, our current Scope is so bad that we can easily allow 50 more large RJs and still improve our Scope. Scope is my number 1 issue for this TA - without Scope improved payrates hardly make up for an extended stay in the right seat. I am against any more large RJs but that is not the only weakness in our section 1. The problem is not that we will be selling Scope - Scope has already been taken/sold/traded etc, depending on your interpretation of the last 10 years. Currently our Scope sucks. I hate the fact that while I was furloughed DCI was hiring by the hundreds, but all aspects of section 1 are equally important - what good would recapturing 76 Scope do if we double our code shares and JVs? I want growth and hiring at Delta. If the best way to do that is tradeoffs within section 1 than so be it. Finally, my interpretation of "Scope must stand on its own" means that we will not be trading Scope for something other than Scope - say higher pay-rates for example. The problem with this is how do we, the line pilots know what was traded for what, and how things were actually costed behind closed doors etc. I guess we have to trust our Negotiating Commitee and I have no reason not to. Scoop |
Emirates airline boss Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum says Dubai carrier may expand in US, is open to acquisitions globally
Q: You recently announced a partnership with JetBlue. Why did you decide to go with a codeshare in the U.S.? A: We always, I think, remain open about it. We have to decide on a win-win situation when we work with somebody else. … They can cover a number of destinations in the U.S. And maybe (there will be) others. I feel like sometimes I don’t want to decide for the commercial people to announce something that is in the pipeline. Q: So are you saying that something is in the pipeline? In the U.S. or somewhere else? A: I mean … (Laughs) Q: Does Emirates have any interest in acquisitions of other airlines? A: I will be very frank with you. I will tell you, I don’t have a number that I give to my people, that you have to go and spend that amount. Because I think that’s the wrong way to do it, by allocating a budget and saying: “Go and spend it.” It’s opportunity, it’s timing, it’s (a question of) where. Is it going to be something that in the long term, short term, is a benefit to the business that we’re in? Big, big, moves are going on globally in the airline industry that will dwarf USAir/AA, I want our Section 1 a tight as it gets for codeshare and JV. This isn't theoretical either, this is going on right now. It's a codeshare today, but the JV is announced, approved and could start tomorrow. If you saw the Virgin 777-300 at T5 in LAX at a Delta gate three times a day, you might rethink our current Section 1 too... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by iceman49
(Post 1180681)
It's also a big chunk of change we are losing out on by training for free. They have a fashion police at DATCO?:rolleyes:
|
Good post, Scoop.
I think we're all getting the same feedback, so we know what they're going after, both the NC and the company. We can judge the results when/if there is a T/A. I do want to make one observation, and I think it's an important concept. Let me see if I can develop it like this: 1) It's not just important what we say on the forum, but what we do. 2) We step up to say we'll vote down a contract that's not satisfactory, and this is good. But we're also tripping over ourselves over rumors, and showing eagerness for a T/A. APC right now is just humming along, powered by eager Delta pilots. That sends a message too. 3) Many of us, including me, are now showing a willingness to look at the T/A, with Section 1 taken in it's entirety. This opens the door for a deal further. Maybe they're now negotiating over a couple of jets here and there, or a % of pay, or an hour of vacation... you get my drift: maybe the whole thing is down to going a little this way, or a little that way. 4) [B]The more anxious we act (not talk), the less management feels they have to yield to get us there, the less leverage our guys have to go just a little further. 5) The more patient we act (not talk), the more management feels they have to give to get us there, the more leverage our guys have to go just a little further. So think about this, as we perhaps approach the finish line (I'm not playing coy here.... I don't know either): Patience and discipline might get us more. Patience and discipline might yield 1% extra, might yield 25 less 76-seat jets, might yield a better sick policy... whatever. And that little bit of patience now will pay back dividends every year. At this point, your target audience is no longer other pilots. We don't have to convince each other of how to vote on a T/A yet, and to influence a T/A, we should be talking to our reps, not just this APC closed loop. This is mostly about showing discipline, as the NC determines whether they can wrap this up properly, or not. This is the time to provide them with just a little extra leverage, IMO. I'm for one am going to try to put my words where my mouth is, and step back. I'm not a patient man at heart, but I can learn if there is a payoff. |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1180936)
Emirates airline boss Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum says Dubai carrier may expand in US, is open to acquisitions globally
Back in Europe, Emirates just took a 29% in Air Berlin (Air Berlin purchased LTU, the red 1011s for the old-timers). Now Emirates is looking at taking a stake in AF/KLM but AF/KLM only want's to do it if they get the feed from Air Berlin. Emirates btw operates the world's largest 777 and A380 fleet and has 90 A380 on order, they're not all going to just fly to and from DXB... Big, big, moves are going on globally in the airline industry that will dwarf USAir/AA, I want our Section 1 a tight as it gets for codeshare and JV. This isn't theoretical either, this is going on right now. It's a codeshare today, but the JV is announced, approved and could start tomorrow. If you saw the Virgin 777-300 at T5 in LAX at a Delta gate three times a day, you might rethink our current Section 1 too... Cheers George Very true George. A EK JV is probably something DAL wants really bad. The thing with those types of deals is that airlines backed by their government hardly every play fair. George, strategically, DAL may be "motivated' to get our deal done to stop this and buy a large stake in AF/KLM. RA did state he wanted to take back Paris as well.....Just a though to ponder. |
Originally Posted by pilotc90a
(Post 1180946)
I have heard stories about guys being sent back to the hotel for wearing Jeans to class... I can't imagine, since you are allowed to wear shorts non-reving.... Whatever.
Not to be a "tool" but the FOM states business casual for all company business. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:53 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands