More Delta Scope Relaxation?
03-22-2009, 03:47 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,326
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Maybe it is time for the PM's to start. Maybe a preemptive grievance is in order, just to establish ownership.
I will be the first to demand a grievance if they fly with the new weights. There is however no such thing as a preemptive grievance. Every pilot posting here should google the railway labor act. To many pilots believe we operate as union like plumbers or construction workers. Sadly we don't. Another post a pilot said we should honor other airline pilots pickets. Again that little detail of the RLA comes into play. We don't get to fight fair with management. We go into the ring with are feet glued to the canvas and giant pillows for gloves. Management goes into the ring free to move with no gloves and rolls of nickels in their hands! Some of this may change. Who Obama picks as the head of the NMB will have a big impact on our future.
When pilots talk about getting rid of ALPA these are things they forget about. ALPA is working really hard behind the scenes to insure that pick is labor friendly. There are hundreds of political issues like this but on a smaller scale that come up every year. Like the CIA you rarely hear of ALPA behind the scene work that turns out well. You get every failure highlighted however. Without a strong national presense we are truly doomed long term. I often wonder if we had AMR and SWA in ALPA how different things might have been today from a political standpoint.
03-22-2009, 04:37 AM
#54
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I agree with you on that Sailing. Getting rid of ALPA is not the answer. For every bad thing they do there are at least 10 things they do well.
Problem is that the failures are on things like scope, et al. Each pilot has a voice, use it. If you do not like the direction your MEC is taking, change it. Work with out action is nothing.
Problem is that the failures are on things like scope, et al. Each pilot has a voice, use it. If you do not like the direction your MEC is taking, change it. Work with out action is nothing.
03-22-2009, 04:43 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The gross weight is critical and we can not allow any increase. The decision by the the prior MEC to allow the weight increase that paved the way for the 170 at the connection carriers was the biggest single mistake we have made in scope. I don't believe you will see the company even ask because they know the answer.
In the old days we'd call for a cease and desist plus penalty for a blatant violation of our contract.
03-22-2009, 05:09 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,326
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
Who says they'll ask? Maybe the aircraft will just show up and we will have to grieve it.
In the old days we'd call for a cease and desist plus penalty for a blatant violation of our contract.
In the old days we'd call for a cease and desist plus penalty for a blatant violation of our contract.
I have been around since the mid eighties. I can only recall one instance in all that time where the company violated a black and white area of the contract intentionally. That was in international block hours after 9-11 and operationally that was perhaps unavoidable given the circumstances.
There have been many disputes over grey area's in the contract and for the most part I have felt the negotiated settlements or the rulings by the NMB have been reasonable on those grey areas.
I don't expect the company to change how they do business and simply ignore the contract. The gross weight and seat limits are black and white not grey. If shuttle american flies these jets at the new weights I expect DALPA to move quickly to file a grievance. I don't think it will come to that. I suspect this was a unilateral move by Shuttle America. Email your reps and let them know. The company will probably approach us about allowing the higher gross weight. Again let your reps know how you feel about it.
This is a completely different situation then the grievance and subsequent negotiated settlement on the numbers of 76 seat jets based on mainline fleet numbers. I expect DALPA to uphold the 86,000 lb limit and I am confident they will do that.
03-22-2009, 05:40 AM
#57
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
That is good. It could be their way to get out of the DCI contract too. Violate it, have the contract canceled and then they will use these for their MEH operation. Management could be on board with this. We have no protection with MEH and RAH. It could be the backdoor to scope everyone has been worrying about.
03-22-2009, 06:27 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Management could be on board with this. We have no protection with MEH and RAH. It could be the backdoor to scope everyone has been worrying about.
03-22-2009, 06:31 AM
#59
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
They will fly them for MEH. The way I was told it is only MEH passengers on us with the new code share agreement, but we do have an interline ticket agreement that can be expanded. They can also change the terms of the code share agreement.
I am doing a little more work on this, but I talked to a few people at DALPA about it and they say we have nothing to worry about. That makes me wonder what is up.
I am doing a little more work on this, but I talked to a few people at DALPA about it and they say we have nothing to worry about. That makes me wonder what is up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
