Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1186566)

IOW, more 76 seaters at DCI. Probably lots more, like 50-100 or even more. OK, while that's an automatic no vote from me and I don't buy into any of the sky is falling alternatives, let's run with that assumption that we *need* these additional 76 seaters and we need them at DCI. Again, I strongly disagree, but let's assume it is the case (cause it WILL be in the TA no matter what.)

At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.

But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.

Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.

The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.

If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1186632)

Where is this memo located?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1186634)

I sign up for all of the pilot new briefs and this one was an internal memo sent by the VP of Flying Operations.

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer (Post 1186523)

Four things you should know:

1. Reserve is always a choice.
2. Reserve is just getting good now. Wait until you get to fly almost 100 hours a month on reserve. The upside, you will be forced to retire early because your health will decline more quickly. Kiss seeing your family goodbye as well.
3. The changes that are being negotiated for are part of a big victory taking place because we have leverage and its imperative we get the new contract done quickly or we will lose out on a huge opportunity forever. The next offer will "not be as good" so best take this one.
4. Getting more work out of the worker bees is one way the company is going to make 3 billion net per year. Health and quality of life of pilots will take a back seat to that.

Just vote no.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1186631)

I'm not sure why you're singling me out. I complain very little about my life on 7er reserve. And being a lineholder on the M88 in NYC really doesn't equate to a good QOL. Do you really want to go down the 'commuting is a choice' road? After all the aircraft shifts, base closures, and capacity reductions? Many people can't even settle down anywhere because the company won't stop shifting things. Bottom line, commuting isn't always a choice, and in some cases reserve provides a better schedule and QOL. It's different for everyone, and everyone should be able to exercise their seniority however they desire.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1186635)

I get those in my email as well... it hasn't showed up yet nor is on DLnet. Can you PM me the text?

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 1186648)

PM sent 80.

Originally Posted by caddis (Post 1186650)

Can I get a copy of it? I also thought I was signed up for all the emails but nothing about PEDs in my mailbox.

I got a Trim Tab and a council 1 update but nothing else.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1186283)

Again, you are correct, but lets look at where we are now, and what this group can accomplish. We have a PWA and all its holes. We are in talks and there will be a result. Do you take it, or do you play poker and stand to lose more than a few more 76 seat jets? Does it matter, and is not the time to make the last stand for unity? Do you think you have the leverage the way the PWA is currently written to force the companies hand in this? Do you think this pilot group will be willing to stand strong with a CH11 contract for five to ten years? You leverage will come from the pilot group, the same group that filled out the surveys. The same group that wants an alternate union and wants to divide the power base, not solidify it. Remember that

The issue with unity as described is something that has been evolving for the last 30 years. Pilots vote what they want, get what they want for they and their families, not what will be good for generations to come. Bar, how do you propose fixing this mindset? By telling every pilot here that, sorry I know you want X or Y, but you are not going to get it until you get unity. Go take your Defensive Unity course? I suspect that would be a sure fire way for the membership to seek an agent that gives them what they want.

Its a quagmire, and adding 76 seat jets in any number is just outsourcing more DC-9's. Not fixing the PWA on JV's and CS's is by the same definition not getting unity and outsourcing top end flying to save bottom end flying.

Can this group get it all, without losing a lot in the coming years as the current book is used to beat us to a pulp on holding companies, JV's and CS's? Is a few more large RJ's the sacrfice we as a group need to make to cover our flanks to truly have the leverage to force unity though the ranks and end the DCI ponzi scheme? The intent and end game will or will not be self evident in the live contractual wording we see, but these questions I ask, are ones that every scope hawk, dead zoner, 777A, 744A, new hire, and silent majority pilot, etc needs to ask not just themselves but the pilots they fly with.


*Point of my post(s) is not to disagree but to further the debate. We need good level headed debate on this issue to shed light in every corner.

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1186286)

ACL, Bar,

What both of your points show is how critical it is to holdfast on gains previously achieved. If we trade this for that we are caught in a zero sum gain shifting inequities from one group to another.

What we need is very simple:

Improvements over and beyond our current PWA for:

• Pay
• Scope
• Work Rules
• Everything Else

That's the best way to evaluate the efficacy of our negotiations and to form an opinion on how to vote...

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1186290)

Good post and understood.

Lets start with the basics. What bargaining leverage do we have now?
(A) Because Richard Anderson, Sleepy Ed and Mike Campbell take pride in Delta pilots and want us to be the highest paid.
(B) Scope sale

What bargaining leverage will we have eventually with our current contract and a protracted negotiation?
(A) Strike Vote
(B) Withdrawal of "enthusiasm"
(C) Self Help

The contract you referenced at ASA came after tough negotiations when pilots were grounding airplanes at outstations for missing seat adjustment knobs and testing the Emergency Lights on every walk around. Do you appreciate how many bulbs have to be working to successfully test that system? How does the FAA view operation of the aircraft without working safety systems? Why do I know that two of five bulbs in the Emergency Exit sign of airplanes I used to fly can be deferred?

I have appreciation for working together and partnership. We all need Delta to be successful. But, outsourcing is a mortal threat and deserves a mortal response. If Management threatens our job, we should respond in kind.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1186315)

Bar;
All well and good, really, but again, but there are some realities with question two.
1) We are the only airline that has a successful merger and as a result that release may never come
2) We are too big to be allowed to get to a point where self help is never realized.
3) We are considered a significant part of the economic engine of this country, and again, self help is a very distant possibility.
4) Doing as you suggest gets ugly. Getting back to unity, you need to have it to use it, and until you can get it, you need to find a way to get leverage.

In these talks, how do we get leverage to further unity going forward? By striking a contract down over a single issue; SJS, that will have a gradual solution towards "unity",while fixing the rest of our section one, or as George puts it, a triage concept where we stabilize the definition of our flying even though it may cost a little blood in the short term?

Those are the questions that I presume will be asked of us.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1186698)

Check your spam folder. They sent out two Pilot News Briefs yesterday. The PED policy was the second and the first was charted RNAV visuals in to ATL.