Thanks! You understand my position.

I still haven't seen anyone make a cogent argument on how to

1. achieve what your LEC resolutions desire with a contract amendable date of 12/31/12.

2. Explain how achieving the limited results your resolutions desire (stapling CPZ) will enhance the job security, careers, pay and benefits of all Delta pilots.

All I see is a self-flagellating exercise with a lot of noise and no achievable result.

 

You need to read what the resolution entails.(There are a few out there) It is only, as Bar put it, "resolving to study, research, and report back." We are not demanding anything. We want this issue looked at and studied before we go off and separate CPZ from our MEC. It would create another OH. We really do not want that do we? The MEC is able to table this if they so choose, we are aware of that.
There is a benefit to giving them a vote on the MEC, and or stapling them. They are already in seniority order, and more importantly we recapture some of the flying we gave up. We also could recapture the E-series type since it is not flown by another ALPA DCI carrier. Ergo it does not go against the Ford-Cooksey settlement with ALPA national. There are some real merits to it.
As I said, we, Bar and I, are for the ALPA process, we just want to make sure that this issue is thoroughly looked at before we go and make a decision.

 

How does it create another OH? Big assumption, with the only similarity that they were wholly owned, and CPZ was created at the direction of the NWA CBA.

Please explain that benefit. I don't see one unless seats or aircraft type are already scoped. Voting members that don't share my interests and flying that I don't own through scope make Delta pilot jobs more vulnerable, not less.

One of the fundamental flaws in your argument. You recapture ZERO flying by stapling or merging with CPZ. All you capture is their seniority list. Your distinction between ALPA and Teamster E-Jet flying is the perfect example of that.

Your argument puts your conclusion before the study you claim to request.

 

I appreciate the level of detail that some are drilling down in to, but I think we have to remember one point that is EXTREMELY important in my opinion:

Our union chose to not even fight! Our union chose to settle out of court/arbitration. Our union chose this option on the single most important issue in any contract. THAT is a significant problem in our union.

Carl

 

I really don't see why some FDAL guys are so against this.

More airline airplanes so mid level guys that want to fly the left seat can.

Recapturing some flying lost. Hopefully if this happens all future 76 seat airplanes will go to mainline.

Maybe it is because FDAL guys want the airplane and don't think that CPZ guys are worth it. That is fine but if everything stays the same and DAL starts to hire the 1st 20 guys in each class will be CPZ anyways.

This should be not even need a discussion. It benefits all pilots under DALPA.

It may not seem apparent to senior CA but it is better in the long run. Look at Air Canada they fly the E175 and the 3rd year pay rate is 60 an hour for the right seat and 114 an hour in the left seat.


At those pay rates I am sure a lot of FO with gladly fly this airplane

 

I understand your argument Slow. Where we get in to some issues is the Ford-Cooksey settlement. You know that.
The E-series jets are the only ones that do not fall under this. Hence less likely for a lawsuit for certain individuals.
I would love to see us scope all 76 seat flying. I agree that section six is where this will probably occur. Read the resolution, it is in effect keeping the door open with CPZ, if the MEC chooses not to make them Delta pilots. How we do this is by keeping them on our MEC. There is a lot in play over at CPZ that the everyone needs to educated on. It has the makings of another OH.

 

Dead on!! 100% agree

 

Republic flies the E-170 and E-175 also. Their 175's are a different model that isn't quite as heavy if I remember right.

 

Republic is not a part of ALPA, but yes, they do have E-170 and E-175s.

 

This is like Coex circa 2001 all over again. The MEC will boot the CPZ guys off the MEC because they are "regional" guys. The company will then sell CPZ and the flow provision will be cancelled because they are no longer a wholly owned company. It will be much easier to capture the CPZ flying now than it will after they are sold. Asking the MEC to "study" the issue only gives the company more time to sell the place.

I guarantee you that ALPA and the company know exactly what it would save or cost to bring CPZ to mainline. The study should take about two hours to put into a PDF and be e-mailed to all of us. Why am I willing to bet they will study this until CPZ is sold and then not release any of the information?