johnso29

OK, I came on waaaay to harsh. I'm sorry. I'm just fired up.
That right there is freakin HILARIOUS!

Sorry about UAL.

johnso29

Noted & corrected. Thanks Bar.

sailingfun

Here is a repost from another thread. Moak did not act alone. In fact he was not involved in the negotiations that produced the grievance settlement.

First have you called and talked to your reps. If not I suggest you do. Some of what you posted is totally simply not correct. I agree the furlough protection is minimal however the issue was somewhat trivial also. The 19 airframes if we use our numbers more then likely would only have been restricted to 70 seats for about a year. Then they could put the seats back in so the entire discussions comes down the 6 additional seats in 19 already purchased and allowed airframes for around a year.

We could have stood firm and in some respects I would have preferred that for the message it sends. Had we stood firm and gone to arbitration what would be the likely outcome? First your concept that everyone can see that management fudged the numbers is not the view the MEC held. The truth is that both sides felt their understanding was correct and there were reasons to support both positions. The real problem was the language was poorly written in the first place. In these types of cases arbitrators fall back on intent and negotiation notes ect.. There was nothing in that to clearly support either side.
That means in arbitration there were 3 options.
1. We win slam dunk. By the time we win however they may have been back in compliance and not have to remove the seats anyway. If not they would have had to take the seats out for a very limited amount of time. Perhaps months.
2. Split the baby-Arbitrator agrees with our numbers but feels the companies violation was not blatant and allows them to keept he seats in. (Expect outcome by most MEC members)
3. Company wins. Now they get to keep the seats and apply their formula going forward which allows them to have more seats forever based on mainline fleet numbers. Big loss for us.

You have to look at those options and then compare that with what we got. We get to use our numbers going forward without dispute. That reduces the number of 76 seat airframes going forward. We got some very minimal furlough protection we did not have. THis is better then anything we could have hoped for in arbitration. The only varible is the message we may have sent management by saying no and I agree that is a valid point.

One last point. There was no end run. This grievance was handled exactly the way every grievance has always been handled at Delta since I was hired. The grievance committee appointed by the MEC negotiated the settlement not Lee Moak. As the MEC chairman LM is the approving authority on grievance settlements. He approved it. Again exactly the same as every other grievance we have settled the last 50 years.

acl65pilot

First things first. As I see it, Moak in one fell swoop of the pen, just set back CPZ coming to mainline many moons. In effect there is no reason for DAL to do this now. Yes, there are cost savings associated with them being on the DAL cert as it pertains to flow, but there are bigger savings in the constant threat of a whipsaw, and this scope relaxation. Simply put they are still in violation of Section 1.
We as a union in effect told them they can violate scope for little to no penalty. How do we like them apples?
I can assure you that every mainline pilot is effected by scope. You are correct that many do not know it though. Yes, the more senior you are the less likely a line dog is going to worry about the politics of the union. That is not to say that there are a lot of guys that are international CA's that are not pi$$ed off about this. I know many that are.
Heck there are even some staunch Moak supporters that are saying that he has some major explaining to do. Many expected a chairman's letter detailing the rationale of this. He may do that out of the pressure of a recall that is rising, but it would only be to shut up the masses and get us back in line. Fact is that he sees this as a grievance win for the union. IMHO the membership sees it differently. This is where the root of the problem lies.
We as the membership do not like the way that we see our leadership taking us. They have done an overall good job. But they have not listened on one very important issues, Scope. Many of us feel they will never listen. We have a night and day viewpoint on what DCI does to the mainline career. To fix this we need to:
1) Have a true come to God talk with our MEC
2) Have a resolution passed for a recall on the LEC level. This may empower the current sitting LEC reps to initiate a recall on their own.
3) If two is a non-starter than we need to recall the reps and put people in there that will recall the MEC. We then could put in a new MEC that will serve ALL of the desires and intentions that we have the rank-and-file membership desire. Not only the ones that works for them from their point of view.

Know that going down this path is risky and takes a lot of work from ALL of the membership. Everyone needs to on some level be willing to step up to make this happen. With a new MEC many of the other positions will need to be filled to. If you are unable or unwilling to help out, nothing will get changed, except the name of the door plaque. Remember this as we move forward with this.

mynameisjim

I think Delta should outsource 1 Airbus A-320 to Delta Connection. After all, it's only 148 seats, and DALPA has given up more than that in the past for some perceived furlough clause.

acl65pilot

If what you state is correct, you need to get that message to the LEC Reps that have been e-mailing people. It is not what they put out.

tsquare

I am a widebody pilot.. and yes I do care.. very much so.

shadyops

OK we all know it is a long shot. So NO MORE SAYING THE CHANCES ARE SLIM...if we spent half the effort we do doubting ourselve working towards a goal we would be much better off.

tsquare

I called him yesterday... got his voice mail... still waiting for a return call. Still waiting for an email explanation... Were it not for the forums, I would be more clueless than usual.

sailingfun

I called two reps. This is what they told me. If other reps are putting something out different please post their emails. There are always two sides to every story. There are a lot more then two reps that I spoke to. I would love to hear all sides and opinions.