View Poll Results: Delta pilots: staple Compass to Delta if:
Voters: 228. You may not vote on this poll
Real Unofficial Poll: Staple Compass if:
02-23-2009, 12:58 PM
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Bar please answer. I am new to this whole thing and I respect your opinions. Plus you have a really cool av and persona. Subcontractors are kinda like the Nihilists. We need to go all Walter on them and bite off a piece of their ear.
:-)
:-)
02-23-2009, 01:05 PM
#162
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by satchip
If we take flying back from subcontractors, how do employees of said subcontractor sue our union?
Oh come on Bar, I know you want to answer this.
It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future. Remember the lawsuit that still carries so much bad blood. I will not even mention the name. Give it a guess.
Yes, Bar not my idea, but our MEC's idea. Once again I totally disagree with the direction they are leaning.
02-23-2009, 01:11 PM
#163
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Wow johnso29 - we've just started looking at that too.
We need to keep an eye on the JCBA section 1.B.40.e:
"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85."
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
We need to keep an eye on the JCBA section 1.B.40.e:
"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85."
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
02-23-2009, 01:16 PM
#164
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Wow johnso29 - we've just started looking at that too.
We need to keep an eye on the JCBA section 1.B.40.e:
"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85."
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
We need to keep an eye on the JCBA section 1.B.40.e:
"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85."
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
02-23-2009, 01:25 PM
#166
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by satchip
Subcontractors are kinda like the Nihilists. We need to go all Walter on them and bite off a piece of their ear.
:-)
:-)
"She put her life in his hands, ...now her toe is in the mail."
02-23-2009, 01:26 PM
#167
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
I'm not sure that's official yet ... .
As always, I hope that I am wrong.
As always, I hope that I am wrong.
There is no point in voting yes on this stuff because it is never ENFORCED! I don't know how I'm going to make it 65, this stuff will kill me long before I get there.
02-23-2009, 01:37 PM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
02-23-2009, 01:40 PM
#169
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Wow johnso29 - we've just started looking at that too.
We need to keep an eye on the JCBA section 1.B.40.e:
"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85."
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
We need to keep an eye on the JCBA section 1.B.40.e:
"once the number of permitted 76-seat jets is established, it will not be reduced."
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85."
Best I can tell, three Sections of NWA & Delta scope were (are being) sold in very quick order:
(1) 76 seat grievance settlement allowing 26 additional 76 seaters
(2) Reinterpretation of LOA 2006-10 to not bind ASA and Comair
(3) 1 B 40 e, being reinterpreted as a reduction of 35 allowed 76 seaters instead of a total of 85.
My head's spinning.
Subpart 3 would only be for those hired after 9-11. Not the pre 9-11 hires. It is my understanding that any one TK- that is furloughed, 85 is still the max number of RJ's.
You know I just darn near broke my computer screen reading the ALPA board. There are so many people that state, "What are you going to give up?" There is a cost. Fact is that pulling down DCI and bringing it in-house to mainline would be a cost savings. DAL spends much more than our contract would cost on DCI and the margins it pays to those other carriers. It is not about our costs, it is about keeping this self induced competition going. Keep everyone off their feet. No company or pilot group can demand too much.
We do cost more that say SKW, but the fact is that if were add the margins,management and what not that we pay SKW, we are a lot cheaper at operating these flights than they are. DAL would be making money instead of SKW. We pay a guaranteed profit to them, how do people figure we have to give anything up? The truth is in the numbers!
02-23-2009, 01:41 PM
#170
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 354
I personally think that if steps are not taken to recapture 76 seat flying now (Compass or something else) that 99 seats and under will be outsourced within a few years. Your (my) MEC doesn't seem to care about scope. Writing letters and making phones calls trying to tell them what's important to me doesn't appear to change their mindset.
Any Delta pilots care to voice their opinions in the coming LEC meetings?
Any Delta pilots care to voice their opinions in the coming LEC meetings?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
