New flaw in TA scope

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 28 of 39

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-02-2012 | 07:37 PM

#271

Boomer

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jan 2008

Posts: 4,628

Likes: 15

From: blueJet

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadHead

Is anyone actually buying that the 717 order will get cancelled if we vote down this TA?

Have a hard time believing this one

"The 717 deal requires the pilot TA to pass, unmodified, by June 30th. A NO vote will immediately negate the 717 delivery timeline and the deal is off. This is a one-time chance, and this TA is my last, best offer. There will be no further negotiations outside of Section 6."

- Richard Anderson, Wall Street Journal, 06/23/12

06-02-2012 | 07:37 PM

#272

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Okay, I'll agree we should look at section 1 separate from the others.

My point was that if you don't believe the union will enforce section one, THE most important section of our contract, why do would you think they would enforce the other sections? To me it's an all or nothing. Either they will enforce the entire contract or not.

I gotta go! Sorry to "debate and run."

Denny

I'm sure there wouldn't be the angst about this that there is had there not been the history by DALPA of not enforcing section 1. The RAH holding company loophole was/is a clear violation of the intent of our scope, but DALPA refused to file a grievance. Time limits of JV balancing are extended by a single MEC administrator which allows imbalancing to continue longer than the original language stated.

This stuff happens. I wish it didn't, but it did. It is for this reason many of us are so uncomfortable with more weak language.

Carl

06-02-2012 | 07:42 PM

#273

slowplay

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2008

Posts: 2,539

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomer

Delta just spent millions ripping seats out of the 70s to put in a First Class.

Now they suggest they'll rip First Class out of the 90s to put in more seats? Who would believe that ruse? ALPA apparently, since they're claiming victory at preventing 80/82 seat scope.

Boomer,

You might want to look at the Bombardier website and see how a First Class equipped CRJ-900/5 might be configured. I know, it's just a ruse...

06-02-2012 | 07:42 PM

#274

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit

I think the DCI max domestic block hours goes to a max of 39% and planned as of 34%...

In three years we will get a chance to tighten that ratio even more and to start the work of sunsetting the 64's and 76's that are ending their DAL commitment.

You bet! And to start that "sunsetting", we just need to agree to allow 70 more 76 seaters. We must allow the company time to sunset the current group of 76 seat jets as they expire, by allowing new ones.

Can't you just hear the road shows of 2015 now?

Carl

06-02-2012 | 07:46 PM

#275

TeddyKGB

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 1,673

Likes: 0

From: 7er

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Carl,

If the TA isn't ratified now, the road shows that you mention in 2015 will be for a prolonged section 6 TA that doesn't even come close to making up for what will have been lost in time.

06-02-2012 | 07:48 PM

#276

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit

UAL already has unlimited 70's.

DAL combined cap is 255 (lower than pre-merger DAL/NWA limit)......

All that with 25% lower pay(DAL TA will make UCAL 40% behind).

Thanks to UCAL for pulling their weight and helping raise the bar!

Who put pressure on whom?

But doesn't UAL have a prohibition against even one jet over 70 seats?

It's a tough call, but I think 70 seat jets will soon be the economic choke-hold to companies that the 50 seat RJ is now. They will likely die on the vine, just a little later than the 50 seaters. What's worse, UAL allowing an unlimited number of dying jets, or DAL allowing 325 modern efficient 90 seat jets (currently configured to 76 seats)?

Carl

06-02-2012 | 07:54 PM

#277

Boomer

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jan 2008

Posts: 4,628

Likes: 15

From: blueJet

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay

Boomer,

You might want to look at the Bombardier website and see how a First Class equipped CRJ-900/5 might be configured. I know, it's just a ruse...

I'm on the thing every day and we don't have a lot of room to spare. Where are they going to put an extra row or two of seats? Maybe pull out the galley and bathroom? I'm curious enough to check it out on their website.

06-02-2012 | 07:56 PM

#278

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadHead

Slow,

Question....
What happens if the company does not honor it's side of the agreement, and keep the ratios within contractual limits?
(What penalties are outlined in the TA against the company)

THAT is the question. I think everyone agrees the block hour ratios are what this TA's section 1 hinges on. And we have some recent history. It involved the JV's balance ratios. When DAL "allowed" them to get unbalanced against us, there was a time limit for those ratios to rebalance. One single MEC administrator signed the MOU that extended the time limit for rebalance. He essentially moved the goal post for the company. And he did so without a single pilot's vote, or a single reps vote.

Carl

06-02-2012 | 07:57 PM

#279

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta1067

Carl,

If the TA isn't ratified now, the road shows that you mention in 2015 will be for a prolonged section 6 TA that doesn't even come close to making up for what will have been lost in time.

I just don't know what to say other than: