Interesting little dot to connect...
06-27-2015 | 05:17 PM
#22
On Reserve
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: ATL 717 A
Yes, you are.
1 E. 2. discusses foreign partnership flying, but nothing in it restricts whether those foreign partners carry Delta colors.
And as for this being an MEC Chairman vs MEC decision, I don't know why but I just did a check and there are multiple places in Section 1 which contain similar language. See 1 N. 3., 1 N. 5., 1 O. 4., 1 O. 13., 1 O. 14, 1 P. 8., 1 Q. 7.
Need I go on?
This is another sinister rumor that is baseless and is being used by those opposed to this TA to imply something that is false.
1 E. 2. discusses foreign partnership flying, but nothing in it restricts whether those foreign partners carry Delta colors.
And as for this being an MEC Chairman vs MEC decision, I don't know why but I just did a check and there are multiple places in Section 1 which contain similar language. See 1 N. 3., 1 N. 5., 1 O. 4., 1 O. 13., 1 O. 14, 1 P. 8., 1 Q. 7.
Need I go on?
This is another sinister rumor that is baseless and is being used by those opposed to this TA to imply something that is false.
The TA language seems to give the MEC chairman, and only the MEC chairman, much greater latitude in deciding, with the Company, where and how our logo can be used, without consulting the full committee, let alone the membership. This potentially could have significant impact on what "Delta" really is and who flys its planes and routes.
I do not have a legal mind (UCLA geology, class of '87), but the TA language in section 1.E.9, seems sketchy to me, and I'm just trying to grasp it's possible implications. There's so much more of this TA, beyond pay rates, that's disturbing.
The E190s are another concern. In a recent "Contrails" or "Notepad" - I forget which - in answer to the concern of them replacing 88s, the authors stated that they had heard nothing from the Company about that happening. My answer to that is "So?" The Company isn't going to tell the NC everything it plans to do. To assume that E190s are not going to replace at least some 88 flying (in addition to rj stuff) seems naïve. Pay rates will mean nothing to me if I get bumped from line-holding 717A to reserve 717A/M88A, or, heaven forbid, E190A, especially if the changes in JV and LCA language are more detrimental than the MEC has indicated.
06-27-2015 | 06:00 PM
#23
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I, too, did a check of the sections you highlighted and, true, changes with these JV or marketing agreements are solely between the company and the MEC Chairman. But none of these appear to have anything to do with using the company logo and brand on these partners, and the Company has already shown a willingness to operate outside the bounds of one of these agreements.
The TA language seems to give the MEC chairman, and only the MEC chairman, much greater latitude in deciding, with the Company, where and how our logo can be used, without consulting the full committee, let alone the membership. This potentially could have significant impact on what "Delta" really is and who flys its planes and routes.
I do not have a legal mind (UCLA geology, class of '87), but the TA language in section 1.E.9, seems sketchy to me, and I'm just trying to grasp it's possible implications. There's so much more of this TA, beyond pay rates, that's disturbing.
The E190s are another concern. In a recent "Contrails" or "Notepad" - I forget which - in answer to the concern of them replacing 88s, the authors stated that they had heard nothing from the Company about that happening. My answer to that is "So?" The Company isn't going to tell the NC everything it plans to do. To assume that E190s are not going to replace at least some 88 flying (in addition to rj stuff) seems naïve. Pay rates will mean nothing to me if I get bumped from line-holding 717A to reserve 717A/M88A, or, heaven forbid, E190A, especially if the changes in JV and LCA language are more detrimental than the MEC has indicated.
The TA language seems to give the MEC chairman, and only the MEC chairman, much greater latitude in deciding, with the Company, where and how our logo can be used, without consulting the full committee, let alone the membership. This potentially could have significant impact on what "Delta" really is and who flys its planes and routes.
I do not have a legal mind (UCLA geology, class of '87), but the TA language in section 1.E.9, seems sketchy to me, and I'm just trying to grasp it's possible implications. There's so much more of this TA, beyond pay rates, that's disturbing.
The E190s are another concern. In a recent "Contrails" or "Notepad" - I forget which - in answer to the concern of them replacing 88s, the authors stated that they had heard nothing from the Company about that happening. My answer to that is "So?" The Company isn't going to tell the NC everything it plans to do. To assume that E190s are not going to replace at least some 88 flying (in addition to rj stuff) seems naïve. Pay rates will mean nothing to me if I get bumped from line-holding 717A to reserve 717A/M88A, or, heaven forbid, E190A, especially if the changes in JV and LCA language are more detrimental than the MEC has indicated.
Dr Faulkner said he did not want to have a role as the sick leave monitor and pilot "abuse" police. Delta is replacing him and has advertised his position as open...
The hits keep on coming.
Punitive sick leave monitors for pilots governed by the rules of the FAA. Didn't anyone tell management that pilots are part of the airline business model? It isn't much of a stretch to see where this is headed.
06-27-2015 | 06:42 PM
#24
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
I, too, did a check of the sections you highlighted and, true, changes with these JV or marketing agreements are solely between the company and the MEC Chairman. But none of these appear to have anything to do with using the company logo and brand on these partners, and the Company has already shown a willingness to operate outside the bounds of one of these agreements.
The TA language seems to give the MEC chairman, and only the MEC chairman, much greater latitude in deciding, with the Company, where and how our logo can be used, without consulting the full committee, let alone the membership. This potentially could have significant impact on what "Delta" really is and who flys its planes and routes.
I do not have a legal mind (UCLA geology, class of '87), but the TA language in section 1.E.9, seems sketchy to me, and I'm just trying to grasp it's possible implications. There's so much more of this TA, beyond pay rates, that's disturbing.
The E190s are another concern. In a recent "Contrails" or "Notepad" - I forget which - in answer to the concern of them replacing 88s, the authors stated that they had heard nothing from the Company about that happening. My answer to that is "So?" The Company isn't going to tell the NC everything it plans to do. To assume that E190s are not going to replace at least some 88 flying (in addition to rj stuff) seems naïve. Pay rates will mean nothing to me if I get bumped from line-holding 717A to reserve 717A/M88A, or, heaven forbid, E190A, especially if the changes in JV and LCA language are more detrimental than the MEC has indicated.
The TA language seems to give the MEC chairman, and only the MEC chairman, much greater latitude in deciding, with the Company, where and how our logo can be used, without consulting the full committee, let alone the membership. This potentially could have significant impact on what "Delta" really is and who flys its planes and routes.
I do not have a legal mind (UCLA geology, class of '87), but the TA language in section 1.E.9, seems sketchy to me, and I'm just trying to grasp it's possible implications. There's so much more of this TA, beyond pay rates, that's disturbing.
The E190s are another concern. In a recent "Contrails" or "Notepad" - I forget which - in answer to the concern of them replacing 88s, the authors stated that they had heard nothing from the Company about that happening. My answer to that is "So?" The Company isn't going to tell the NC everything it plans to do. To assume that E190s are not going to replace at least some 88 flying (in addition to rj stuff) seems naïve. Pay rates will mean nothing to me if I get bumped from line-holding 717A to reserve 717A/M88A, or, heaven forbid, E190A, especially if the changes in JV and LCA language are more detrimental than the MEC has indicated.
And if you read the CVG F/O Rep's con paper, you'll see that this same MEC Chairman single handedly signed off on the piddley $30 Million JV Scope Violation settlement. This Dip Sh!t needs to go back to sitting reserve.
Last edited by Timbo; 06-27-2015 at 07:07 PM.
06-28-2015 | 08:41 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,845
Likes: 197
From: window seat
That way our MEC chairman could still give permission as far as the company is concerned, but he could only do it if we agreed as far as we're concerned.
06-28-2015 | 09:23 AM
#26
On Reserve
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: ATL 717 A
I agree. At the very least, the committee should be involved. If the company wants to brand another carrier and operate it as "Delta", not as a JV or marketing agreement with a stand alone and sometimes competing airline, then full MEMRAT.
FWIW, I also feel that the $30 million JV settlement is inadequate. That should be the fine; now, get in compliance without using the MEC and its TA.
FWIW, I also feel that the $30 million JV settlement is inadequate. That should be the fine; now, get in compliance without using the MEC and its TA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
