If there is an agreement that benefits the current pilots of Delta, it will be hard for the majority to not vote it in. If an agreement of '50 confirmed 787's with 10 CRJ-1000's or EMB-190's to be operated by Delta Connection' is shot across the bow, it will be awful hard to convince the entire pilot group that a "no" vote is proper (Delta Connection carriers already operate EMB-170's and CRJ-705's), especially if there is a pay raise thrown into the equation. And, naturally, if the pilots are voting on it, it's likely already been 'endorsed' by the DALPA MEC. Pilots (like every other voter) have always voted out of self-interest. DALPA didn't give away 50% of the flights on purpose over the last 15 years, but it happened.

This same pursuit of short-term gains at the expense of long-term goals is pervasive in our society - look no further than Wall Street's focus on quarterly and annual earnings.

It's tough to see the forest these days when the trees look SO darn' good.

 

'

An old FedEx friend of mine once said "I don't believe anything until it is sitting on the ramp painted purple. Confirmed ain't confirmed until they have a widget on the tail.. period. My retirement was confirmed at one point... It's a moot point anyway, they ain't gonna have that many 787s.

 

Whoa there, big guy! You forgot the most important part. Confirmed ain't confirmed until they have a widget on the tail AND Delta pilots in the cockpit working the flight!

 

Agreed. The point is, there are certain 'deals' which can look REALLY good, and may in fact benefit the current pilots of Delta.

RJ's, 2-man flight decks, B-scales . . . just a couple votes that may have worked to the benefit of the majority of pilots who actually voted them in, but certainly had some consequences for those who came after them.

Its easy pickings when you have hindsight to help you out.

 

Hey PCL, I know things can get busy and you can forget about things - but how are you doing with that sourcing for your opinions that I've posted above?

Carl

 

Carl, sorry for the delay in responses. Some of us are actually working to make things better for pilots instead of just complaining on the internet, though.

The problem isn't my math skills, Carl, the problem is your reading comprehension skills. Or more accurately, the lack thereof. You'll notice that the 52% number references a "pay increase," while the use of the term "double" was used to apply to total pilot payroll. The APA's proposal included a 52% increase to rates of pay, but also included improvements to many other areas, such as benefits and scheduling rules. In total, the changes would more than double total pilot payroll costs for the company.

I'll wait patiently for your example of the NMB allowing a strike for either a 52% increase or a 100% increase to pilot payroll costs, though. Since I know neither example exists in reality, I won't hold my breath.

Section 2, First of the Railway Labor Act, clarified by the decisions in Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 538 F.2d 46, 51-52 (2d Cir.1976) (appellate court affirming district court's application of mandatory-permissive distinction in case arising under RLA and rejecting union argument that labor and management should meet and negotiate with respect to any proposal advanced by either party); and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 302 F.2d 540, 543-44 (7th Cir.) (discussion of whether pension agreements constitute subjects of mandatory collective bargaining under the RLA).

Both of the above cases ported the NLRA concept of mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining to the RLA, and further clarified that the only mandatory subjects of bargaining under the RLA are those specifically delineated in Section 2, First of the Act, which only lists pay rates, work rules, and working conditions. Job security is not included, and is considered by the courts, and therefore the NMB, as a permissive subject of bargaining.

If you have any further questions, you can always call the DALPA office and speak to one of the contract administrators. I'm sure one of them would be more than happy to educate you.

My views haven't really changed on these issues. The areas where you and I disagreed were always on tactics. The RJDC and frivolous litigation were not the ways to go about effecting change. As I've always told you, real change must come from within. Not from a court room or a message board on the internet.

 

WOW... busy here.... as the new guy I can only say: Let's get along, management WILL somehow get what they need... let's line up in ONE line and tell them what WE want....

 

You are assuming it would get past the MEC to a MEMRAT. It still has to be voted on by the status reps before it go out for a general vote. I haven't spoken to a single rep that is any mood to give anything additional on scope and they all know the standard management tactics. Reference your example, if they want to buy 50 787's they need the lift as part of their business plan, and will get them with or without 10 CRJ-1000's. If it really hinged on the CRJ's then we know they are not serious and it's just about further scope erosion.

 

Some of us are, but you certainly aren't. You're the guy who paid for your job flying the beeches at gulfstream aviation, then joined that top-notch airline valujet/airtran, then hit the lottery by being bought by Southwest Airlines. Yup...you sure have done a lot to better the profession.

Nobody could answer that question and I'm sure you knew that when you asked it. There's no way to back through 70 years of contract negotiations to prove or disprove that. But here's something that should be much easier to prove: When has there ever been a time (even in recent history) that the NMB has refused to mediate, and refused to release the parties to self help? Answer: It has never happened to my knowledge...and that's the point of this conversation.

The NMB is plowing totally new ground here and it is a very scary thing for labor. It's not for you because guys like you think increases in pay and QOL might hurt the profession, so you laud the NMB's new anti-labor stance. But the rest of us are alarmed by it.

Carl

 

I understand your need to talk about pensions and other topics, but here is what you said earlier:

Since you're the one making the statement, I'll ask the question again: State the source or document that shows the NMB is not permitted to release you to engage in self help over scope? Try and focus PCL. Focus.

For the rest of the thread that doesn't live in the land of OZ, can you imagine how great it would be for management if this were true? Management could agree with every single demand of ours and leave just one item left on the table. That item would be to require scope to allow the outsourcing of every pilot position. Now since that's the only item left not agreed to, PCL says that the NMB could never allow self-help because only scope was left on the table.

Maybe management's lawyers never realized this before.

Carl