Well, I would attempt it if I was here, but I will be enjoying one of the best cities in the world.

I talked to a few that thought that it would be closed due to some of the discussion.

Air France also has Regional Airlines flying E190s, Brit Air flying CRK's (CRJ-1000s), and Cityjet flying Avros. Their domestic flying is heavily outsourced within France, and throughout Europe. Have you seen that CRK? It is ridiculously long, and again Regional Airlines flies E190s for them. Bad.

KLM has KLM Cityhopper, and they fly F70s and E190s, but their pilots are essentially on the KLM list. A 744 FO for KLM can bid the E190 as a Captain. The Fokkers originated at Air UK, and they used to fly F100s and F50s. Now, it's mainly F70s and E190s, but they are under one roof. They may also own Transavia, with 737-700s/800s, but I don't believe they can flow to KLM.

Yes, but the issue is pilots receive this after using the UTCP only ONE time. This letter comes of as a disciplinary letter with an almost scolding tone. It's has a 'We will let it slide this time, but don't let it happen again' feel to it. Bottom line, that's not something that makes people feel comfortable using it.

The original intent of this program was for it to be mutually beneficial, and if the company comes across with this attitude the 1st time you use it, it is likely that guys will not use it in fear of reprimand. It's silly you receive this letter after you've used it ONCE. I can understand if there is a pattern of abuse by a particular individual, but this letter is over the top IMO.

It may not be the companies intent to come off the way they do, but I think many will perceive it as a threat.

There is considerable internal rancor involved with this meeting.

Unless there is some REAL reason to close the meeting, like discussion of negotiating strategy or tactics, I was assured that it will be held in open session, with any attempts to close the meeting otherwise to be held to a recorded vote. Anyone in ATL who can make it, should make it.

There is considerable upset going on here. We should watch the outcome closely, and everyone should contact their reps after the fact for the blow-by-blow. There are agendas at work here, folks....if it was a simple election to confirm the committee members, as some who are quoting the letter of the policy manual imply, that can be done with a conference call.

But 2/3s of the LEC reps called for a special meeting, and only 1/3 is required.

The current NC has been working very well together, and has provided some acceptable gains and have worked with their corporate counterparts. Any change in the game plan at this point, and you defeat what the cheerleaders principal complaint against the DPA is...that is changing the players before the big game.

Nu

Agreed, that is factual.

But there are a number of "supposals" which get talked about. Some of these concepts eventually become agreements. Once agreement is reached, consensus forms quickly and at that point it is virtually assured of continuing to a grievance settlement, LOA, or part of a PWA.

IMHO our MEC has given our pilots plenty of objective reasons not to trust them on Section 1 issues. If I trusted our MEC, or even my own Reps, these rumors would be put to rest as soon as they came in. That trust is desired by a great many pilots.

Our MEC has been resolute on not going on the record in support of restoration of Section 1. In fact, we've given away part of our scope language agreed to by the Company, agreed with the Company's interpretation of scope language and divested Compass from our representational structure.

Trust is earned. Our MEC could earn this trust by emphasizing the value of each and every member. Our MEC could earn this trust by going on record with "no scope liberalization, Delta pilots perform Delta flying."

In a way it has to do exactly with this, because certain people want the NC changed. Certain people feel there is too level of a playing field. I agree with you Nu. If they change the NC this close to Sec 6, then bring on DPA because they just chopped off the only leg holding themselves up.

I want to know WHY the NC needs to be changed so close to Sec 6? Why change a NC that has made significant improvements to a contract with crummy work rules at a price of no cost? What did it cost to get our pay system changed? Nothing. What did it cost to get PS DH's on deviations? Nothing. What did it take to get some Sec 23K areas changed? Nothing. That's just a few things that have been done. Why change the NC now?

We've talked about this before, Johnso. Where do you come up with all this conspiracy stuff? And what is "too level of a playing field"? Why don't you just state the real reason you're concerned vice obfuscating?

The current negotiating committee was elected in March of 2010, and I believe their term of office began July 1, 2010. According to the PWA, management and ALPA can exchange Section 6 openers 270 days prior to the expiration of the current contract (April 5, 2011). The following is from the MEC Policy Manual (in the DALPA site file library). Note that the MEC can waive or amend policy (it is their manual) at their discretion.

SECTION 7 − COMMITTEES OF THE MEC

d. The Negotiating Committee will normally serve for a period:
1) Commencing six months before the Opening Letter may be presented by either party to commence Section 6 negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, in which case the committee will serve for a period not to exceed six months after the signing of the new Section 6 Agreement (or its equivalent), or
2) Commencing no later than six months after the signing of an Agreement in Section 6 negotiations (or its equivalent), and for a term not to exceed two years.

e. Within the constraints of d.1) and 2) above and in order to provide for an orderly transition, the MEC chairman may choose to schedule the election of a new committee within the 90-day period (or at the regularly scheduled MEC meeting immediately prior to the 90-day period) prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent committee. The newly elected committee will take office at the expiration of the incumbent committee’s term.

OK, tsquare, I gave you a pass last time. No more.

Both Slow and I have provided a rational, logical opinion regarding the outcome of the effects of LBP on pilot bidding behavior. You counter with nothing more than "You are wrong."

Please provide your opposing argument, rather than just dissing ours. We're waiting ...

If it was a simply mater of rubber stamping the current NC makeup, this could be done on a conference call in all of 3 minutes.

Instead, 2/3 of the LEC reps insisted on a physical meeting.

Somethings more going on than the sound bites would imply.

Nu

I'll only use the commute policy if the flight I have my jumpseat on cancels and the next flight's jumpseat is already taken. I live in a city that's all mainline so I don't have to worry about weight-restricted rj's.