Details on Delta TA
06-14-2015 | 11:38 AM
#8751
On Reserve
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
SharpestTool, you are still avoiding my direct question about 14.F.2. When I stated that the removal of Voluntary Verification is, in my opinion, punitive, you responded directly to my post that the language is unchanged from C2012. That is not true - the TA clearly removes the ability to voluntarily verify under 14.F.2. How can you state the "language is unchanged from C2012?"
06-14-2015 | 11:39 AM
#8752
Banned
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
06-14-2015 | 11:43 AM
#8754
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 0
From: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
06-14-2015 | 11:45 AM
#8755
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
Read section 1.E.9 a little while ago and had to meditate on it, as I find this hard to believe and need some guidance.
Does this REALLY gives one person, the MEC chairman, the ability, if and when asked, to say to The Company, "Yeah, you can slap our name and logo on anybody you like, anywhere you like, and market them as Delta"?
Does this section REALLY give the leader of the organization that is supposed to be protecting and enhancing our careers, working for us, the ability to allow me to see a China Eastern A340, painted in Delta colors, depart one of Delta's hubs, and go to Shanghai? How is that protection and enhancement?
This seems to be classic outsourcing of our jobs. This a huge part of what killed the American maritime industry. If my, and other's, interpretation of this section is correct, 1.E.9 benefits only shareholders and senior management.
Voting "yes" just because of a still insufficient pay raise seems, to me, to be extremely myopic.
If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me. And, yes, a version of this will be sent to my rep.
Does this REALLY gives one person, the MEC chairman, the ability, if and when asked, to say to The Company, "Yeah, you can slap our name and logo on anybody you like, anywhere you like, and market them as Delta"?
Does this section REALLY give the leader of the organization that is supposed to be protecting and enhancing our careers, working for us, the ability to allow me to see a China Eastern A340, painted in Delta colors, depart one of Delta's hubs, and go to Shanghai? How is that protection and enhancement?
This seems to be classic outsourcing of our jobs. This a huge part of what killed the American maritime industry. If my, and other's, interpretation of this section is correct, 1.E.9 benefits only shareholders and senior management.
Voting "yes" just because of a still insufficient pay raise seems, to me, to be extremely myopic.
If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me. And, yes, a version of this will be sent to my rep.
Take a look at your current PWA and then the TA. Management can already use the paint and logo on partners. The TA makes it where the MEC chair has to approve it or not. It is limited to International Partner Flying where the partner isn't a company affiliate. It gives us control over something we didn't have control of before.
It means SkyTeam paint jobs. The provision has been around since we started alliances in the 1990's so things can be co-branded. It has nothing to do with outsourcing.
06-14-2015 | 11:45 AM
#8756
Banned
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Are you afraid to meet me and see that I'm a Delta pilot? Must be. This is an opportunity to prove to the world that you have bagged an imposter, and to score some free beer to boot.
06-14-2015 | 11:46 AM
#8757
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
From: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Sorry, I am in MAN and just finished eating at East East my favorite Indian restaurant, working on a giant Transatlantic fart to send your way. Going from EASKs to block hours is a huge concession, and agreeing to a pittance in the grievance settlement was the other. If this gets voted down, what is ALPAs plan to get the company INTO compliance under C2012? Since we are going to be parked by the NMB for eternity.
06-14-2015 | 11:48 AM
#8758
Banned
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Speaking of liars, who started the sick verification myth? Then who when knowing better continued to propagate the myth?
Are you going to propagate the myth now that the language is out? Might not be a good idea because if a sceptic decides to check the facts he may be a little taken back by the dishonesty.
Are you going to propagate the myth now that the language is out? Might not be a good idea because if a sceptic decides to check the facts he may be a little taken back by the dishonesty.
06-14-2015 | 11:49 AM
#8759
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
From: Decoupled
06-14-2015 | 11:52 AM
#8760
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
Sorry, I am in MAN and just finished eating at East East my favorite Indian restaurant, working on a giant Transatlantic fart to send your way. Going from EASKs to block hours is a huge concession, and agreeing to a pittance in the grievance settlement was the other. If this gets voted down, what is ALPAs plan to get the company INTO compliance under C2012? Since we are going to be parked by the NMB for eternity.
That's a guess. Talk to the codeshare committee (I haven't yet). They can give you a better understanding of the consequences of switching from EASK to block hours.
Indian food farts...your poor FO's! I hope they ate with you!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
