|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1222970)
10 years from now, you won't give a rat's ass about 76 seat airplanes. Nobody on this seniority list will.
Being close to my second decade, I still care about outsourcing and the erosion of our career. In 10 years, I still will be just as concerned. I respect your mindset. I hope I am wrong with all my concerns.:) Fly Safe Bros, TEN |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223371)
Denny;
Those 739 may also be the sole reason we hire earlier than planned. Why? The aircraft they are replacing are the flex fleet. Keep some of those airplanes slated for retirement, we will need bodies. That is absent this agreement, but combined with this agreement, there is a little more flex for the company. Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1222318)
Well then the next question to you is "Do you think DALPA will grieve it and force the Company to comply?"
I would submit that, if you don't think DALPA would then what is the point of having a contract? In my mind, the ratio is the key to the scope clause and if DALPA won't protect that, they won't protect anything in the contract so why have one!?! That's a pretty cynical attitude for one so young!:) Denny What section 1 should have said is that any pilot or aircraft operating in violation to this scope agreement immediately falls under the terms of this Delta CBA, and will be added to the bottom of the Delta SL. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223163)
Just think if we bough HAA and all of those 717's arrive, with pilots :eek:
Those will count towards the 717's delivered and the allowable 76 seat aircraft count. If not I sure cannot find it anywhere in the PWA; no longer TA :D The language is in 1.B.43 that delineates what a SNB is. The definition of "airman" is in 2.A.15 The definition of "pilot" is in 2.A.198 The scope that covers what flying a "pilot" does is in 1.C The merger language is in 1.D.8 What is considered the Delta "Fleet" is in 1.B.28 and 2.A.10 the way it was described to me by the NC was that it had to be "new small narrowbody aircraft" in the Delta "fleet", not the purchase of an "air carrier" that "operates other than permitted aircraft types" that happen to be "new small narrowbody aircraft". Therefore aircraft gained via merger would not fit the description and allow more 76's. clear as mud? :D |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 1223384)
T,
Being close to my second decade, I still care about outsourcing and the erosion of our career. In 10 years, I still will be just as concerned. I respect your mindset. I hope I am wrong with all my concerns.:) Fly Safe Bros, TEN |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1223464)
ACL, gotta disagree on this one. Any 319's or 717's that are part of M&A will NOT be counted toward the increased 76's.
The language is in 1.B.43 that delineates what a SNB is. The definition of "airman" is in 2.A.15 The definition of "pilot" is in 2.A.198 The scope that covers what flying a "pilot" does is in 1.C The merger language is in 1.D.8 What is considered the Delta "Fleet" is in 1.B.28 and 2.A.10 the way it was described to me by the NC was that it had to be "new small narrowbody aircraft" in the Delta "fleet", not the purchase of an "air carrier" that "operates other than permitted aircraft types" that happen to be "new small narrowbody aircraft". Therefore aircraft gained via merger would not fit the description and allow more 76's. clear as mud? :D |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1223464)
ACL, gotta disagree on this one. Any 319's or 717's that are part of M&A will NOT be counted toward the increased 76's.
The language is in 1.B.43 that delineates what a SNB is. The definition of "airman" is in 2.A.15 The definition of "pilot" is in 2.A.198 The scope that covers what flying a "pilot" does is in 1.C The merger language is in 1.D.8 What is considered the Delta "Fleet" is in 1.B.28 and 2.A.10 the way it was described to me by the NC was that it had to be "new small narrowbody aircraft" in the Delta "fleet", not the purchase of an "air carrier" that "operates other than permitted aircraft types" that happen to be "new small narrowbody aircraft". Therefore aircraft gained via merger would not fit the description and allow more 76's. clear as mud? :D It being clear as mud is my concern. Probably not an issue, but one would never know. |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1223472)
Thanks for providing a more detailed analysis then we normally see around here. It appears the NC and code share committee guys put a great deal of thought and real world analysis into this language. Good folks doing good work.
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223488)
Actually, it is and thanks for the correction. I was looking at the language as a stand alone, not in reference to what our fleet is or isnt, and those 717 would be SNB's that are "new" to us.
It being clear as mud is my concern. Probably not an issue, but one would never know. Clear as mud for us, and clear as mud for lawyers are very different situations. Ever want to have an attorney look at a Vol. 1 and see if he understands it?:eek: |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1223552)
That is what I thought at first also, but there are NC notes to go with it and I reiterated the question to make sure.
Clear as mud for us, and clear as mud for lawyers are very different situations. Ever want to have an attorney look at a Vol. 1 and see if he understands it?:eek: If there are NC notes that further protect us with the ambiguity, I am quite pleased. Sent a question about that away the second day the TA came out and never heard back. I posted my concern on here, and look how quick you were able to get it. :D |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:32 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands