To be fair, there is a trust and credibility gap right now between DALPA and the pilots. TA15 had similar information briefs put out, and in those briefs everything was presented as only positive for the pilots. So now, even with a largely new MEC, people who have zero affiliation with any opposition group (read: DPA), are spring loaded to mistrust DALPA communications on this TA. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

Rather than yelling "DPA!" at the doubters, DALPA needs to recognize that this trust/credibility gap is real, and reasonable, and work double - time to bridge it.

When the only comeback is "DPA!", it doesn't close the gap.

 

.
" It's in me nature. "
.

 

1) If AZ leaves it would trigger reset negotiations*
2) Yes
3) Yes, expedited arbitration under the RLA with remedies including injunctive relief, compensatory and possible punitive damages

* Potentially rendering this change much ado about nothing

 

NO, not everything is terrible. The pay rates are decent. But, we are giving up a lot of concessions for those pay rates.

The scope section is a loss for us. I'm sorry you do not agree. Without dollar signs blinding me, I see that we are selling our pay rates for scope. THAT IS NEVER THE ANSWER! I don't care what else you sell in your contract, scope should never be on the table. Get every gain you can any chance you can get, but do not give an inch on scope. THAT'S YOUR JOB! THe 2000s were terrible for this industry because of RJ scope. Ask NWA mechanics how their scope gives worked out for them. I CANNOT every agree to a sell in scope. I wish everybody saw it the same way. People complain incessantly that this company is a glorified domestic feed yet they agree to give huge concessions on JV scope. ***?

I really wanted this TA to be a win. I do not have an ulterior motive. I do not have any desires for DPA to take over or anything like that. I support my reps and tell them how much I appreciate them.

As for last year, I don't know what you are talking about. I was not allowed to even vote for the last TA. I think you have me confused with somebody else.

 

Another post that contributed nothing to the conversation?

I am saying the things I say because I believe them and want other people to consider another viewpoint.

Why exactly do you post?

 

I realize this statement runs against the common wisdom, but the con side mostly made up what they did not understand and lied about the rest. After I walked several of them through the language and their questions they acknowledged they had written bad information yet none of them returned to social media and told the truth. Worse, some of the misinformation got picked up by LEC Officers and went out as semi-official comms. (which would confuse anyone who does not understand that an LEC Rep can publish whatever they please)

ALPA's Admin published the truth. They were called "liars." The liar stuck.

This year some of the worst players on social media last year are in the ALPA administrative structure and serving the pilots quite well. John Malone's move to include and bring in some of the most vocal opponents of last year's deal has done a lot to make this year less toxic.

Those who got swept out from the old admin have taken the high ground and swore not to do to this team what this team did to them last year. We (I include myself in this group) try to focus on what is best for the Delta pilots (we are all Delta pilots).

The only party with a duty to be honest (and act as a fiduciary) is ALPA. ALPA is the only publisher with an attorney going over every word that is written.

The rest of us participate in SM for whatever motivations we have (with a lot less of an editorial process to ensure what is written is right).

 

Thanks for the response Bucking...

 

Yes, but 2+2=4 regardless of your belief that it equals 37

You could make your point better without exaggerating.

FWIW, I could care less if other people consider any viewpoint other than the facts. Scope is important and confusing.

 

Go figure. Maybe an older brother that works for Delta? Fair enough, we'll move on.

It appears to me you're systematically exaggerating the negatives. I think it's hard for anyone to label the Scope section as either a huge win or loss. It's sort of neutral.

One of the reasons Scope is sort of neutral (and I imagine we'll come at this from a very different perspective), is that we got really myopic on the RJ's. According to a JS rider on the MEC, the only thing that separated the "7" and the "12" were RJ's. The 7 saw value, the 12 a threat. Since this was said to be an absolute must for the company (oops), and worth hundreds of millions to them (oops again), we were said to cave (oops a third time). So we "won" on RJ's.

I would hope that you would like that, and file it in the "win" column. I know that not losing something you have shouldn't sound like a win, so let's simply say your view prevailed. Fair?

I actually view the RJ status quo as a loss for us. We didn't shrink DCI and we're operating above NB ratios that we're not codifying into the contract. Meanwhile the zombie 50-seaters linger on, at company discretion. And I haven't seen the 76-seat order for mainline yet.

So we learned vastly different lessons in the previous decade, I suppose. But in either case, it seems like our Scope battle was fought on the small-gauge end, and it seems like the MEC got a little distracted. What would the deal have looked like if we traded on 76-seaters? I have no idea. Were there better protections available on the WB end? No idea. If the DPA salesman is right, and negotiators told him that there were "hundreds of millions" available to the company, then perhaps some of that saving should have been shifted over to the WB column?

So the Scope section, in my mind, is a bit dull. I think we failed to capture an opportunity on RJ's. OTOH, looking around the world I don't envision us breaking through any unexplored frontiers and capturing a ton of flying. Considering the alliances we have or might have, I figured we'd try to protect what we have. I figured we also need as much downside protection as we can get. I don't like the EASK metric on the downside, but it's great on the upside. I had heard we were going to shift to BH only, but I'm very pleasantly surprised that we're getting a hybrid. So the whole thing is boring, for sure. A surprise? Hardly. A complete fail? Nope.

I think we got exactly the Scope deal the internet was asking for.

 

Sink,

Good post. I highlighted the areas where you are spot on.

Everyone seems to be overlooking the new Virgin language which captures their new off-the -main certificate operator(s) heading to leisure markets and being set up to compete with Norwegian. Our team tightened that language up so it is all counted. Then there is the 1 E. 9. protection for our brand which is absolutely critical. Also, the affiliate and control language that ensures our scope will not suffer an end run by creative managers using certificates of convenience.

These provisions are the most evolved scope language in the world right now, making our scope clearly industry leading. The "internet" does not understand or appreciate what was done here IMO.