Airline Pilot Central Forums - GED = Good Enough for Delta

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

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - GED = Good Enough for Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/72344-ged-good-enough-delta.html)

Hit and Run Post:

Quote:

1. Making Aircraft Commitments
. . . a. Delta commits to maintain in the Delta Connection fleet (i.e., aircraft in service, in maintenance or operational spares) at Pinnacle no fewer than forty-one (41) jet aircraft certificated for operation in the United States for seventy-six (76) passenger seats and with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 86,000 pounds or less (“76-seaters”).

. . . b. Delta commits to place and maintain in the Delta Connection fleet at Pinnacle the incremental forty (40) 76-seater deliveries above the total in the Delta Connection fleet as of December 1, 2012 (i.e., 76-seat aircraft numbers 154 through 193 in the Delta Connection fleet). For purposes of this provision, the transfer to Pinnacle of any 76-seater in the Delta Connection fleet at another Delta Connection carrier will offset on a one-for-one basis the commitment to deliver to and maintain at Pinnacle any of such incremental forty (40) 76-seater deliveries.

cont'd.

. . . d. Delta will be excused from compliance with the provisions of Section 1.a.-b. in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control (as defined in the Delta PWA) is the cause of such noncompliance.

Does PCL maintain their 81 jets worth of DCI flying if the Delta MEC negotiates to operate all RJ flying at mainline?

I read it as: If "Delta Connection" ceases to exist because there will not be a "fleet" to maintain at Delta Connection, the agreement is void?

Bold mine below... If the Delta Pilots have a "labor dispute" to demand the RJ's not be "permitted aircraft" anymore, then the PCL agreement terminates and Delta Pilot Scope is still the controlling document.

Quote:

“Circumstance over which the Company does not have control,” for the purposes of Section 1, means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster; labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current operations.

Wish I could stay for the responses, see you all tomorrow!:p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1331429)

I don't accept your premise. I don't let my family fly on DCI carriers. Ever. Even if it means driving or taking the train.

Do you ever have to DH on DCI?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1331419)

I think we could 'fix this' real quick, if both the DAL and PCL pilot groups filed for single carrier status, put them on our list, working under our contract and pay them our rates.

Let's see how much sleep Ed loses over that!

It would be a huge fight, but worth pursuing, and who knows? Maybe the unprecedented step of DAL negotiating directly with 9e pilots could be used to prove single-carrier status.

To even investigate this possibility, you would have to have a union that believes in strength through unity, and that there is power in having as much DAL flying as possible represented by one MEC.

Instead, you have a union that believes its strength comes from colluding with management to fragment your flying, keeping the outsourced portion cheap, and using that money keep the remaining pilots happy. Oh, and using flow agreements to placate the cheap outsourced pilots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1330099)

First class plus EKG, blood drawn by a lady that has no idea how to find a vein, and a hearing test.

Is the hearing test anything like the Military one? (I hate that test).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BladeRunner (Post 1331688)

Is the hearing test anything like the Military one? (I hate that test).

Ever seen the movie Quiz Show?

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainv (Post 1331561)

Do you ever have to DH on DCI?

nope, I bid around it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Sanchez (Post 1330042)

A significant union roadshow sales pitch item included in the Pinnacle concessionary bankruptcy TA is the Bridge Agreement. The associated “Streamlined Selection Process” (SSP) establishes the process for Pinnacle pilots to flow to Delta, for the most part (2/3) in seniority order.

Not included in the TA or Bridge Agreement documents presented to the Pinnacle pilots is a letter from Steve Dixon (Sr. VP Flight Operations) to Tom Wychor (Pinnacle MEC Chairman). The purpose of the letter is to confirm an agreement between the two whereby Pinnacle pilots are able to flow to Delta without meeting the published minimums, specifically waiving the college degree requirement. Wychor has complied with Dixon’s request to “not publicize or make public” the details of this "Vault Letter", as a majority of Pinnacle pilots have not seen it (or do not even know about it).

My question for the double breasted among you is this- Why would Delta lower the bar and hire Pinnacle (/Compass?) pilots who do not meet the published minimums when there are thousands of qualified applicants available?

(Training failures should not be a concern, as these SSP pilots have the opportunity to return to their previous position at Pinnacle should they wash out of Delta training.)

Thanks for bringing this up. I think it's ridiculous that these guys shouldn't have to meet the requirements of everyone else. I hope that this isn't true. I've pretty much lost all faith in ALPA if it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitimefurl (Post 1331381)

I'm still stuck on the part where you say "they" are "some of the worst pilots you've ever seen getting an undue and streamlined chance at a job far above where they should have peaked."

To which I say, why didn't you do something about them being "some of the worst pilots you've ever seen" before you found out they might be sitting next to you? You let "some of the worst pilot's you've ever seen" continue to fly around our passengers and families and it's only become a problem because of a $100,000 piece of paper?

Time to get unstuck. All but one month as an FO was spent while I was still on probation. Not exactly a whole lot of power in that position, eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsclamp (Post 1331886)

time to get unstuck. All but one month as an fo was spent while i was still on probation. Not exactly a whole lot of power in that position, eh?

sOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD AN EASY QUICK RIDE TO THE LEFT SEAT, amirite captain mccapterson??

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolwut (Post 1331937)

sOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD AN EASY QUICK RIDE TO THE LEFT SEAT, amirite captain mccapterson??

Considering the running pass rate for upgrade was only 50% when I went through, I wouldn't call it easy. :)