Yeah, and since I hear pretty much the same "crap" from most of the guys I fly with, they buy into it too! Imagine that...

 

G, I believe Chuck G. was MEC chairman for c2k and he was the one signing a lot of the communications, not JM.

 

That is correct. And JM was negotiating chairman. The leadership, communications, and execution of the objective by the negotiators were a gazillion times more effective than the visionless, spineless, legal-eze crap we have today.

 

JM gave up the E170/175 to DCI. Biggest scope mistake we made!

 

That's simply not correct and is precisely the point. LEC reps do not have the same ability to communicate throughout the pilot group as does the MEC administration. To even suggest it is disingenuous. Furthermore, the MEC administration has the right to edit the communications from any reps that the MEC deems inappropriate.

Communication is power. The MEC administration has power because it controls communication methodology AND the content of that communication.

Carl

 

He was NC and plenty of communication.

I don't have access or I would post it.

 

Well said, Denny. I was a bit surprised to see this thread revived, and expected a cursory glance to be disappointing. I stopped reading at your post, at the top of the page. I feel exactly the same way about the muckraking.

I wish there was an "agree" button.

 

gzsg's posts=

 

According to you. John was negotiating committee chair and Mike was strike committee chair. Most of the people that you hate that do ALPA work were all working on the strike committee at that time. Neither John nor Mike was allowed to communicate to the pilots without extensive review from the MEC administration so you can shelve the idea that he alone did anything. C2K was the result of a massive team effort. Some have tried to set themselves up as singular heroes that won the day by themselves, but those of us that were there know what really happened. If John was so super valuable then where is he now, I mean other than sitting on the sidelines and throwing rocks. If John really believed in union effort, he would pitch in even if he isn't the lead dog. If you are only part of a team when you are the leader then you are not a teammate, you are a narcissist. Let's face it, no one is indispensable to the union. What counts is working together and accepting the fact that you alone are not in control. That is why you webboard warriors are so frustrated. You have some self important view that if only everyone did what you said, the world would revolve around you. It won't and never will.

You just selectively see heroes and goats based on who agrees with you in the last 20 seconds. From my viewpoint you are all anger with no strategic vision. If someone like you were put in charge you would get chewed up in a second. This is multi-billion dollar business. Your type of anger and vitriol isn't worth jack in this environment. I mean you value open honest, communication, so here it is with no gift wrapping. I'm sure that makes me a mean guy; or maybe just an honest one that doesn't care too much what you think of me.

 

Isn't the E170/175 a 90 seat aircraft that we limited by contract to 76? If so, then the following scope history overview doesn't line up with your statement:
__________________________________________

The 1990 contract had two pages of scope (actually 1.5) allowing the company to operate unlimited 70 seat and below aircraft (with no limits type, weight, propulsion or use). Some where in this time frame ASA was given permission to operate Bae-146's (96 seats).


The 1996 contract grew to 9 pages. Real improvements were made with regard to control of the company, merger protection, furlough, foreign carrier flying, and minimum block hours of international flying (limiting future international code share arrangements if the company dropped below the minimum number). A limit of 20 was placed on the Bae-146's (or any replacement jets in a 96 seat capacity). The limits on connection carrier flying was no more than 70 seats (again, no limit on type, weight, powerplant) for passenger use, and a weight limit of 70,000 lbs for cargo use.


The 2001 contract grew to 15 pages. New to the contract was:
-minimum block hours for all DAL flying,
-connection carrier flying
-limit of 57 70 seat RJ's (weight limited to 85,000 lbs)
and up to 18 more RJ 70's (one more for each 10000 hours of mainline flying over the annual minimum set by the contract),
-limit on 50 seat Rj's of 65000 lbs
-limit of 70 seats/70000 lbs on prop aircraft for any use (weight limit on passenger use was new).
-all connection carrier flying was subject to a ratio of mainline hours/connection carrier flying.
-Rj use restrictions on stage length, hub to hub flying, and logo/name use
-DAL not permitted to code share with company(s) that operate jets greater than 70 seats (and not to be used for DAL flying)
-Bae-146's and their replacements GONE
-increased international flying block hours (with new penalties for dropping below) and new restrictions on international code share/profit sharing.
-fragmentation protection
-prohibition of DAL training pilots for service in the event of a labor dispute on our code share partners (domestic and international) and vice-versa (e.g. DAL could not hire pilots trained by Comair of Air France in the event we were on strike).


2 provisions of the above were subject to economic resets:


-the minimum number of mainline block hours
-the ratio of connection carrier flying to mainline


No other provisions were reset: meaning limits on 70 seaters (then at 57), weights, stage length, hub to hub were excused.


In the event that the economy or DAL failed to perform, then DAL was excused from those two provisions as written. (These two provisions ((as well as furlough protection) were also subject to "circumstance over which the company does not have control".) The first time either economic trigger occurred, there was a built in reset. The second time there was a provision to meet and confer to reset them again. We all know what happened in 2001 and that the triggers were met in 2001-2002. Twice. So what occurred next? DAL and ALPA did reset both provisions in the fall of 2002 as part of the NWA/CAL code share. FYI, it was the MEC that tied the two talks together as they both pertained to scope (the company asked to sever the negotiations to get a quick deal on the CAL/NWA deal).


Letter 46


-Reduced the minimum number of block hours and the connection carrier flying ratio.
-eliminated furlough protection, but required all furloughed pilots to be recalled by 8/1/2008
-reduced the international block hour flying
-allowed up to 125 70 seat RJ's (still covered by the ratio)






Letter 51
-eliminated minimum block hours
-eliminated minimum international block hours
-eliminated the ratio of mainline to connection carrier flying
-allowed connection carrier to fly up to 200 70 seat jets
-allowed connection carriers to operate 30 76 seat jets (covered under the limit of total greater than 50 seat jets)