I don't understand. You don't trust the union and don't trust the company. But, this is a contract negotiated between the union and the company. Your default position on any issue is going to be that you don't trust it.

My opposition to last years TA was because the language in it screwed us majorly. It was so bad that most of us insisted that our MEC and reps be recalled.

In this TA, I see language is good for us, and language that protects us. You seem to admit that the language is there, but you say ALPA won't enforce it.

So, what's the point in negotiating for the language?

No contract is perfect. But, if you can't believe simple words and phrases will be enforced, why negotiate at all? If you don't trust that you can influence your representatives through a vote, or a DPA card, why read the TA at all?


I think you guys have more of a problem with DALPA than you have with this TA.

 

International is where the real money in a VB is at. Domestic is chump change. We just turned them down flat for using it. Why do you think we will approve it in a year?

 

The only reason for the company to open a VB is to reduce credit time and hence manning. Overall however this contract as a package has worst case a handful of jobs lost. With the size of the raise I plan on flying less. Others say they will also. That may have a bigger impact then any work rule changes.

 

Really do not remember anytime that the NWA MEC ever sought VB or satellite basing, I remember the company wanting it.

 

Too many years of watching the Moakies roll over has turned me into a cynic.

 

MEC Memo in a year -

"The company came to us and wanted to make permanent the Virtual Basing concept. They offer an mid-contract raise of 2% on top of the 3% we were scheduled to get. In exchange, they wanted to add international operations as the current agreement limits the use of Virtual Bases to mostly domestic. As this gives all Delta pilots a 2% additional raise, we decided to agree to their request".

Do you think the MEC would turn down a raise like that when 8000 pilots say yes and the 4000 international pilots (or whatever number) say "nooooo!"

 

That makes two of us. I like the way you think.

 

I would suspect the company wouldn't run VB to it's fullest potential the first year. They would hold back on what They "really want to do" until it was voted in and established. Then we would see how bad things could get with VB and the company pushing things to the max.

This kinda reminds me of regionals with multiple bases. It was not a good thing. Bases under staffed, junior manning taking effect in waves never seen before, and vacations cancelled. My gut says stay away from VB as far as you can, unless you have an iron clad agreement governing details on numbers and staffing. Yes, I know we don't sell back vacation or cancel it, but what can of worms could this start?

Again my point really is the company in the first year making it look like a good thing. It gets voted in and then the company decides to really optimize it to the max. What is the Max??? I don't want to find out.

 

If the company is willing to pay for it like that why not offer it now. I would also consider that a major contract change requiring member ratification. Your scenario is somewhat meaningless with regard to the TA. The company can always approach the union with any contractual change they want.

 

As I have posted probably 10 times there is nothing that keeps us from retaining the right to terminate the agreement at any time. Solves the issue you mention. It's also fairly easy to predict where the company can apply a VB and what the cost savings would be.