Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)

- - It's so simple (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/68181-its-so-simple.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1214017)

What's funny is you say you could not care less, but you won't stop talking.

I know how difficult it might be for you to comprehend, but we are not the only ones reading our posts. And with close to 9,000 of them you are nothing if not a prolific, useful and unsophisticated foil.

Thanks for that at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ualheavy (Post 1213924)

My personal opinion on the UCAL scope issue is that "the toothpaste (RJs) is out of the tube and there is no putting it back in" for the 50-70 seat variety of RJs at UCAL. Any RJ above the 70 seat version should be flown by mainline period. Use ratios and hard caps to limit the overall RJ effect on mainline flying (much like what your TA proposes). I'm concerned about JV's and widebody flying being siphoned away from us by other Star alliance carriers (Aer Lingus and COPA comes to mind) and we need lots of contract help in these areas going forward post-merger.

CEO Smisnk has made it known he wants 90 seaters and have them outsourced. I'm sure he is using USAir and AA's bk proposed scope arguments at the negotiating table to try and win his case before the NMB.

As far as Delta's TA for scope, it seems like a nice solution to reduce overall RJ airframes and seats, add mainline 717's, and provide your metals customer the 1st class cabin that they seek for upgrades. UCAL sucks in this area and I'm sure we have lost many customers to you because of this.

A really important point for you UCAL gentlemen to remember is that scope is an impermissible topic for the NMB to discuss on the path to self help. Smisek can make his "case" all he wants to the NMB, but they will politely remind him that any changes to scope must be mutually agreed to by both sides. If both sides cannot agree, then status quo scope must prevail and the NMB can release both sides. If you guys wanted to reverse outsourcing (which requires a scope change), the NMB couldn't allow you to use the self help weapon for the topic of scope.

This wrinkle in the law gives you a powerful tool against management, because they have no power at all to influence the NMB to see scope their way unless the pilots also agree. All you have to do is not agree to any changes to your scope and the company is powerless to change your position through NMB exertion. If your TA contains any new outsourcing, it can only occur by you agreeing to it.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1213962)

This is NOT cost neutral to the pilot contract, it "might" be cost neutral to the DAL Corp.

It will be a 350-425 mil annual benefit to the pilots in contractual increases.

Pure BS. EVERY gain in this TA is fully funded by concessions in other areas.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by 76drvr (Post 1213969)

Exactly, it appears that the savings from reducing DCI is being invested in the Delta pilots. If it's cost neutral, then by definition, there is no more money on the table.

Except management didn't say Delta "pilots". They said the changes allowed by the pilot's TA would fully fund the investment we are making in Delta "employees".

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1214017)

You done squat since post BK. Try moving forward. What you've done in the past does nothing for us today. I know what NWA pilots have done. I was hired by NWA.

And UAL won't be allowed to strike. Isn't going to happen. What's funny is you say you could not care less, but you won't stop talking.

We simply have to stop parroting this ALPA/company drivel. The NMB is NOT in the business of prohibiting strikes. They are specifically charged with managing the path which ALLOWS strikes and/or lockouts.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 1213991)

Ever heard of the United pilot strike in 1985? How about the United pilot Contract 2000 that only allowed 50 seat regional SJs? DL pilots followed that one up with matching the pay, inferior work rules and giving away 70 seaters in that C2000. United pilots helped get almost 700 rEAL pilots hired at UAL via preferential interviews. NWA got even more rEAL pilots hired at NWA relative to their size.

If not for Gerald Grinstein DL pilots would have been in the same situation as UCH pilots.

When was the last time DL pilots got anywhere near a strike again?

50 seaters, 70 seaters given away and more 90 seaters with 76 seats given away if the T/A passes; all in good times, without a fight and not under duress.

P.S. Johnso, I could not care less whether an obvious company sycophant chooses to listen to facts. For some no amount of evidence is sufficient.

FWIW, I'm a solid no voter, and how my vote does or does not affect UCAL has never even entered my mind. Before you pull the rEAL card again, I was a junior in high school when my dad was a rEAL striker who go hired at NWA at 49. I know what it cost, and I know that ALPA was a (minor) party to that failure.

Not to come to Johnso29's aid, as he's more than capable of defending himself, but I've never known him to be a sycophant to either side.

Here's an idea. Get your own damned house in order and try to better your own lot. How dare you cast stones at us when you are part of the anchor that dragged our TA down to such a miserable level.

I voted to (hopefully) benefit myself and my fellow Delta pilots. What effect that may or may not have on your disfunctional group never entered my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1214082)

Wrong Carl. Pres Bush II told everyone prior to our C2K contract that he wouldn't let any Major airline strike. But, he did let Comair strike, and that cost Delta $1 billion, and look at them now. No President would allow an airline to strike, it would damage national commerce. You're WRONG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FmrFreightDog (Post 1214124)

How dare you cast stones...

I voted to (hopefully) benefit myself and my fellow Delta pilots. What effect that may or may not have on your disfunctional group never entered my mind.

Feel free to correct any inaccuracies in my posts, but you you made my point beautifully. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1214130)

Wrong Carl. Pres Bush II told everyone prior to our C2K contract that he wouldn't let any Major airline strike. But, he did let Comair strike, and that cost Delta $1 billion, and look at them now.

So...GWB was unfriendly to labor but let Comair strike...and Obama, friendly to labor and at least partially owing his presidency to labor, will not let any airline strike? Ooookay.... :rolleyes:

I think a lot of perceptions about the NMB are outdated by about 3 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1214135)

It's all about size. Btw, the NMB person incharge who talked and warned our MEC, was appointed by Obama. Go figure! Truth hurts apparently.