What will it Take?
07-02-2012 | 09:57 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,039
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
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
07-02-2012 | 09:58 AM
#112
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
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.
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
07-02-2012 | 11:46 AM
#113
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
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
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.
07-02-2012 | 11:54 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
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?
07-02-2012 | 12:01 PM
#115
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
My point didn't come across as intended, and I don't have time to set the record straight...
07-02-2012 | 12:12 PM
#116
Banned
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
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?
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?
07-02-2012 | 12:36 PM
#117
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
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?
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?
It being clear as mud is my concern. Probably not an issue, but one would never know.
07-02-2012 | 01:04 PM
#118
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
07-02-2012 | 02:16 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
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.
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?
07-02-2012 | 02:45 PM
#120
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
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?
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?
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.
