Search

Notices

DPA Chairman?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-21-2015 | 06:18 PM
  #61  
scambo1's Avatar
The Brown Dot +1
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Default

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
OK guys, stop your contributions. It is a waste of money. The internet geniuses say so.
Says the guy who doesn't contribute.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 02:22 AM
  #62  
Bucking Bar's Avatar
Can't abide NAI
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah
Exactly, they can buy 100 A320Neos with 4000 miles range, send them to Europe, and South America, while international DCI can do the A380 routes to everywhere else. Then they can get all the awards that foreign carriers always get. OR, they could have taken that 6 billion in buy backs, and made us the best in the world.
Section 1 R. of the Delta PWA requires Delta fly at least 68.02% of the global twin aisle available seat kilometers.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 02:25 AM
  #63  
Bucking Bar's Avatar
Can't abide NAI
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah
Interestingly, the latest TA had a provision to allow the chairman of DALPA to release the paint job to international codeshare airlines, if he/she so chooses. If the chairman were to release the paint job to foreign carriers, a Delta pilot is just as likely to fly a widebody again as they are to fly an RJ again.
TA Section 1 E. 9. was a new protection which required a safety valve for international branding efforts permitted under C12.
Originally Posted by TA15
a carrier engaged in international partner flying will maintain a separate operating and corporate identity from the Company including, but not limited to, name, trade name, logo, livery, trademarks or service marks.
It is a waste of time to debate a failed TA. The pilots have spoken. But I just can not help but ask ... The TA had a lot of strategic initiatives which were (at one time) supported here on APC by the very same people who argued effectively against it and killed it. Why are you throwing rocks at things you wanted?
  • 90-100 seat flying secured at mainline
  • A minimum of 454 jobs, additional to meet the increasing ratio of mainline to DCI flying
  • An increase, which would have doubled the mainline percentage of domestic flying since the merger, at a minimum (the actual flying would have had to been higher to account for seasonal variation)
  • A likely* increase of 1,400 jobs (depending on how much over the minimum requirement Delta flew ... very hesitant to make promises on behalf of management because their plans do change, but 90 airplanes flying 3,300 a year = 297,000 BH. The average Delta pilot actually operates about 65 hard hours a month. Do the math and make whatever assumptions you want about the fleet ... I still think the future is bright)
  • Pay rates for this flying which were $11 above the 2011 NWA 747 Captain rates, above the pre-C12 767ER Captain Rates, yet it was called a "B Scale"
  • Much better alter ego protections preventing the use of corporate shell games to evade scope (ie Freedom, GoJets, and RAH corporate shenanigans)
  • Removal of the exception for Republic Airlines Holdings
  • Affiliate and Control language to prevent international Certificates of Convenience
  • A real structural bridge to further recovery of DCI codeshare flying, back to mainline pilots via a common type
I've no idea what this, or a future MEC, may direct. I hope we are able to keep some of the good stuff in Section 1 (and improve on it).

Last edited by Bucking Bar; 07-22-2015 at 02:56 AM.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 06:12 AM
  #64  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
Says the guy who doesn't contribute.
I recently flew with one of the PAC guys that does work in DC. I have reconsidered my position on the issue. But since ALPA's days are numbered, I probably won't bother. donuts have a direct line into DC anyway, right?
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 06:36 AM
  #65  
:-)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
TA Section 1 E. 9. was a new protection which required a safety valve for international branding efforts permitted under C12.
Bar, that protection is not needed, it's already in there, all that new section did was empower one man to make a huge scope change. However, you can put that in the new TA, but it should be memrat decides, not the chairman.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 07:05 AM
  #66  
scambo1's Avatar
The Brown Dot +1
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Default

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Section 1 R. of the Delta PWA requires Delta fly at least 68.02% of the global twin aisle available seat kilometers.
I think it is possible to negotiate that down to 50% +/-5% in the next TA. Maybe we can give up our vacations for that change. But, in return we could get the company to give us a $50 trainer fuel card for the low processing fee of $60.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 07:12 AM
  #67  
Bucking Bar's Avatar
Can't abide NAI
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah
Bar, that protection is not needed, it's already in there, all that new section did was empower one man to make a huge scope change.
MEC Chairmen have filed and settled scope grievances. The 76 seat scope grievance was one of the more recent examples. Not sure why those who wrote the TA felt the need to elaborate.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 07:14 AM
  #68  
scambo1's Avatar
The Brown Dot +1
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Default

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
MEC Chairmen have filed and settled scope grievances. The 76 seat scope grievance was one of the more recent examples. Not sure why those who wrote the TA felt the need to elaborate.
So is the JV scope grievance.
Reply
Old 07-22-2015 | 09:52 AM
  #69  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
TA Section 1 E. 9. was a new protection which required a safety valve for international branding efforts permitted under.
More deceit Bar. 1.E.9 of the failed TA was a huge new scope concession...not protection. Our current scope already prohibits it. That clause would have allowed it.

This is yet another reason why I never want you within 100 yards of our Section 1 ever again.

Carl
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GunshipGuy
Major
3
06-29-2015 07:30 AM
TANSTAAFL
Major
728
10-30-2013 01:18 PM
Dorfman
Major
18
06-18-2012 11:35 AM
YXnot
Major
1077
02-18-2011 09:17 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices