|
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1900801)
For those interested the Strategic Planning committee slides are available on the DALPA website.
Lots of good info in it. If there are questions please post them here, call your reps or email/call a P2P rep. Thanks. |
So the wording in sick section. At deltas discretion they can send you to a third party for verification. For even your first sick call! And who is the third party? A doctor, a shrink, pilot review board?
|
Originally Posted by Sounds
(Post 1900949)
I commute from Iraq, yeah!
|
Originally Posted by rahc
(Post 1900604)
I find it funny how the Delta MEC is deleting every single negative post on their FB page now.
Originally Posted by Stinsat7
(Post 1900719)
If this TA is what we ended up with I wonder what the companies opener was?
|
It's hard to say it. But c2012 looks great compared to this brick of a TA. IM WITH KEEPING WHAT WE GOT!
|
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 1900977)
I saw several slides on the RJ scope, but nothing addressing the widebody concessions. This oversight by our "Strategic Planning" committee is significant cause for concern. How could a "Strategic Planning" committee overlook a reduction in top end scope? Why was there no mention of years of willful violation of the JV contract by the company? Shouldn't this enter the perspective of the NMB? Was this a really a scare tactic in disguise? (TIC)
I don't think it is. But... I think that's a decision for the membership to make on their own. I think the clarification is still being crafted. Again, I apologize for the delay and gaps in communication at times. But the JV is a big concern to me as well. |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 1900977)
I saw several slides on the RJ scope, but nothing addressing the widebody concessions. This oversight by our "Strategic Planning" committee is significant cause for concern. How could a "Strategic Planning" committee overlook a reduction in top end scope? Why was there no mention of years of willful violation of the JV contract by the company? Shouldn't this enter the perspective of the NMB? Was this a really a scare tactic in disguise? (TIC)
It'll be interesting to hear from council 1 and 20. |
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1900982)
I don't think it is. But...
I think that's a decision for the membership to make on their own. I think the clarification is still being crafted. Again, I apologize for the delay and gaps in communication at times. But the JV is a big concern to me as well. |
RJ scope is maxed with the 717 deal. If they really want them add them to mainline and make them common with the E195. They will always look for relief and we have always giving it. The line is drawn, don't redraw it again. The large end scope was probably rewritten in the grievance settlement but I haven't seen those details yet either. Being separate and all they should be available. But...
|
The truth is that the LEC reps are the experts. They have been living with the language. But as you know are quite busy.
P2P got it when the membership did and are really trying to fill the gaps as best we can. Again, it isn't ideal. But for those of you who have been patient and are asking questions. Thank you very much. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands