![]() |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1204441)
We have no strategy because we have no leverage because we have no scope.
Thanks for sharing!;) |
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 1204437)
Has the DAL MEC addressed the following language precludes the mainline/DCI block hour ratios from being enforced unless DALPA has control over the language in the DAL & DCI CPAs?
Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance. Also, is this T/A really cost-neutral for DAL in the face of a projected $2B profit before oil dropped to $83/barrel? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1204395)
*of note those that will vote no because of more large rj's need to understand that even a reworked deal will likely include em. The truer question is; " are the quids worth the trade?"
IMO, ALPA and MGT are aligned in wanting to outsource our work. Neither want a strike. They both want labor peace. They both want to minimize one groups power over their source of income. Outsourcing does it for both. Did anyone advocate outsourcing more large RJs in their survey? People need to think long and hard about this scope trade you speak of. It will be there in the next TA if this gets voted down. A comparison of fleet size usually sheds some light on our outsourcing. I am just listing the 70-76 seaters, since by themselves is bad enough and is of most concern. Delta TA (70-76)=325 Entire fleet sizes of other airlines AirTran = 140 Alaska = 119 HAL = 42 Jetblue = 172 Spirit = 40 US Airways = 339 Virgin = 51 source, APC We are going to outsource 70 more large RJs. More airframes than 3 of the airlines listed above, just in this TA alone. These aren't 30 seat props, but mainline jets that we should be flying. This outsourcing dwarfs Hawaiian and is almost as large as US Airways in fleet size, both are Legacy airlines. I hope we will vote this down and any more TAs with these scope trades. Keep it up and soon their will be nothing left to trade. But at least ALPA and MGT will be happy. |
Originally Posted by DAWGS
(Post 1204546)
I believe this to be true. I also believe ALPA is not capable of holding the RJ scope line. IMO, the company will be back at the table pronto due to this crack like RJ addiction. It is the reason they came to us.
IMO, ALPA and MGT are aligned in wanting to outsource our work. Neither want a strike. They both want labor peace. They both want to minimize one groups power over their source of income. Outsourcing does it for both. Did anyone advocate outsourcing more large RJs in their survey? People need to think long and hard about this scope trade you speak of. It will be there in the next TA if this gets voted down. A comparison of fleet size usually sheds some light on our outsourcing. I am just listing the 70-76 seaters, since by themselves is bad enough and is of most concern. Delta TA (70-76)=325 Entire fleet sizes of other airlines AirTran = 140 Alaska = 119 HAL = 42 Jetblue = 172 Spirit = 40 US Airways = 339 Virgin = 51 source, APC We are going to outsource 70 more large RJs. More airframes than 3 of the airlines listed above, just in this TA alone. These aren't 30 seat props, but mainline jets that we should be flying. This outsourcing dwarfs Hawaiian and is almost as large as US Airways in fleet size, both are Legacy airlines. I hope we will vote this down and any more TAs with these scope trades. Keep it up and soon their will be nothing left to trade. But at least ALPA and MGT will be happy. Ok. So you're saying there will always be outsourcing. And your solution is to keep voting NO until they just give up??? |
How about 388 76 seaters, no 70 seaters and no 50 seaters?
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1204553)
Ok. So you're saying there will always be outsourcing. And your solution is to keep voting NO until they just give up???
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1204506)
Delta doesnt purchase WTI. They hedge Brent Crude. We switched last year to avoid the massive swings in WTI prices. Plus if you hedge and prices fall, it can actually result in a loss.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1204581)
How about 388 76 seaters, no 70 seaters and no 50 seaters?
|
Originally Posted by DAWGS
(Post 1204586)
As long as we have a bargaining agent that benefits from our outsourcing, just like MGT, there will always be pressure to outsource our work. Look no further than this TA. Good negotiating enviroment, MGT opens early and we sell another airline worth of large RJs. If we can't hold the line now, ALPA is not capable. And yes, we continue to vote "NO"! I have no other option until we get a bargaining agent in place that isn't willing to sell our jobs. Do you think if ALPA were losing 70 large RJs worth of dues they would be selling them off of our list? I would place a large wager they end up on ALPA property!
308 51-88 seaters PLUS 352 70 seaters. That's APA's proposal to management. I understand they're in BK, but did ALPA give that up in BK? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1204600)
I don't buy that argument. If ALPA brought the RJs to mainline they'd be getting MORE dues. So in essence, they're harming themselves by leaving them at regionals.
It's called a DFR lawsuit. Which is what would happen if ALPA allowed mainline pilots to recapture flying at the expense of RJ pilots-- ALPA is equally obligated to both groups. NOW do you see the conflict of interest? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands