Bucking Bar

I think the answer as to why they want it done quick is that we've reached the point (as you will recall in my predictions around this time last year) that we are forced to move forward on fleet renewal.

One way is outlined through this TA.

The other way is to get the 717's now and kick the DCI refleeting down the road until the 3 to 1 ratio begins and management can hope for significantly expanded scope relief down the road through traditional Section 6.

ACL65's concern is that this TA sets us up for a scope fight in 2015. He's right. We will always be in a scope fight until we recover unity, or lose representational relevance. As long as we allow Palestinians in our Jerusalem we're going to be fighting over territory, count on it.

The way I see it, we've received a bit of an economic gift in the timing of Delta Connection's re-fleeting needs. We can make an interim gain by working with management, or dig in and go for fourth and long yardage. I know our team ... they will remain our team on the field ... quarterback says punt for the win. Not as glamorous as the hail mary pass that gets called back on a foul. But I'll take a win over all the drama.

Rogue24

Are you saying that you are OK getting pay for scope trades? Isn't that something you have posted about despising?

Are you really on board with the scope modification or just giving up because you do not see the ability to change this part of the TA in a NO vote?

Bucking Bar

No. What I wrote was:The majority of the MEC voted for the TA, which I extrapolate to mean that they had sufficient confidence in the process that they voted to send the result to the pilots.

Rogue24

The question you need to ask every rep is this:

If presented with the current TA prior to being TAed, would you have told the NC to TA it or send it back? (would you have been OK with this in non-TA form)

Once there is a TA many become "risk adverse" to sending it back without the pilots first voting it down.

Why?
Because then a protracted negotiation is on the backs of the pilots.

Bucking Bar

You know my goal is to see all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots. I do not see the TA as a "pay for scope trade" deal. DCI shrinks and more flying is returned to mainline. My benchmark is unity.

If we continue down the road into traditional Section 6 I think our Section 1 result will not be as good as we see today.

gloopy

True. But MEC majority decisions are responsibile for every mistake, misjudgement and blunder in the past too. The "hard cap" of 57 70 seaters got by the MEC just the same as 255 70-90 seaters and maybe 325 70-90 seaters.

Bucking Bar

Different question. His question was about the process.

The MEC provided a de-facto endorsement of the process by voting for the result.

Rogue24

The process which did not reengage YOUR reps on the result prior to their being a result.

A week of silent deliberations before a vote, before there were enough votes to pass it with ease.

Almost everyone is asking themselves if this is good enough, and really having a hard time with it. The decision should not be this difficult.

Scoop

Give it up Bar. Scope is my number issue and I have been called a "Spin Meister" for basically saying I am glad we held the line at 76 seats and for not shouting "No More RJ's " from the rooftops.

Some guys are more interested in emotion then logic.

Scoop

Bucking Bar

Actually, my Reps were fully engaged and those Reps took time to engage (and respectfully debate) me. Also, I believe our concerns were listened to and are evident in the results. Of my Reps, two are on reserve. Two are junior and one spent time furloughed. We are all Delta pilots. We have much more in common than what separates us.

The majority on this board seem to think "we lost." How? This agreement would probably pass much more easily if the first day bump was 20% & 3,3,3(oh, and DCI gets 30 C Series starting in 2015 when retirements kick in ,,, don't worry, none of you will be furloughed by our projections...) Ironically, our MEC (at least on this board) is taking a lot of heat from the "scope hawks" when they actually went against the overwhelming political tradewinds for more pay above anything else.

We assume scope can only get better. In reality, unless we make tough decisions scope can only get worse. The compromise struck is a trend reversal.

So, we vote NO ... what would be your plan B? ... once the Company commits to a fleet renewal (or refurbshment) plan then their reasons for a interim deal vanish. Their next motivation will be a threatened strike. When can we make that threat? Show me a better way.