Delta To Adjust Fleet Soon After NW Merger
- Thread starter LukeAisleWalker
- Start date
Luke,
To my knowledge, the only 400 people coming into ATL would be the transfers from Headquarters due to facilities closing shortly after the merger, this was announced mid summer shortly after it was also announced that 2500 jobs would be cut. there has been no announcement for any new flying at any new base. These 400 jobs(from headquarters to headquarters) are more than likely internal and have no relevance to In Flight and may not occur until 2010.
To my knowledge, the only 400 people coming into ATL would be the transfers from Headquarters due to facilities closing shortly after the merger, this was announced mid summer shortly after it was also announced that 2500 jobs would be cut. there has been no announcement for any new flying at any new base. These 400 jobs(from headquarters to headquarters) are more than likely internal and have no relevance to In Flight and may not occur until 2010.
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
I wouldnt bank on it...
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
Your a real funny guy, seriously!
I made this especially for you!
"It is what it is, as its going to be ok, so dont put the cart before the horse, or you can always look for a new job." :blink:
North by Northwest
Veteran
Do you have a clue as to how the NMB operates? Unless you believe (in your wildest dreams) that McBush might win...by some act of God.
I think Americans have had enough of Corporate Leadership in the White House. If I were you...I start thinking about a Union or looking for a new job (based on your new bosses history)
(Luke..pm)
*405 NW employees* who are housed at System Operations Control (SOC) center are the employees DAL intends to consolidate their work in ATL, the break down is 287 traditional SOC jobs and 118 who work in the SOC technical operations/maintenance control for the fleet..
metopower
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2006
- 932
- 313
Thanks for clearing this up. You two have been right so far on everything that has happened in this merger quest .
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
Are you kidding me? :blink: Americans have had enough of Corporate Leadership in the White House? You do know that both parties (especially the dems) have voted for the largest (700 billion) corporate benefit package ever. You do realize that dont you?
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
Apparently more then you. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this silly discussion. Your just upset because you have an idea in your head how things should operate, as to which is entirely different from reality. Apparently the same as the committee members who even had a hard time pronouncing "NMB".
OP
LukeAisleWalker
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2007
- 715
- 2
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #25
It's not that we're trying to be right (not for me anyway);it's just that we have a good idea of the inner workings of our own department (Inflight Service) and for NxNW, his own contract.
As far as other departments are concerned, I will be the first to admit I don't know the first thing so I don't usually comment on Res, ACS, Maintenance/Tech Ops or Pilot issues.
OP
LukeAisleWalker
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2007
- 715
- 2
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #26
Apparently more then you. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this silly discussion. Your just upset because you have an idea in your head how things should operate, as to which is entirely different from reality. Apparently the same as the committee members who even had a hard time pronouncing "NMB".
How's 3rd grade going this year?
(Your postings have that "nah nah nah nah NAH nah" air to them.)
~sigh~
Kev3188
Veteran
the reason why they can probably shift planes to different routes shortly after the merger(as announced) is simply they have a ratified pilot contract that will allow them to do so(that is why AW/US have been unable to complete their merger because of not having a combined pilot contract which is not the case with DL/NW). As Flight Attendants, we fly exclusively what the Pilots fly(not the other way around). regarding Pilots..allowing scope to be modified so both group aircrafts can be assigned where the aircraft is needed without violating any contract language. That is probably why they wanted the Pilot contract resolved prior to the merger instead of after(because they could realize the potential to utilize aircraft where needed on routes...immediately) The contract language they needed to complete the merger in is place.
Moving an aircraft to a hub does not necessarily violate our scope, because of flying "exclusively what the pilots fly" our contract does not define aircraft substitution. For example, the pilots agreed to allow RJs (limited number and limited number of seats) substitute a mainline jet to an RJ..(DC-9 to CRJ/E170) our contract does not define if that aircraft can be substituted but rather if aircraft of seating of 77 to 110 is ever introduced into mainline to negotiate pay rates..but it appears there is nothing in the contract that would prevent our flying shifting to RJs nor substituting a wide body for another wide body. Because flying has already shifted to regional jets because the..pilots agreed to allow that..however you are correct there is language that absolutely states we follow the pilots flying, so technically that should be all encompassing correct? meaning if we fly everything the pilots fly, we would fly every aircraft in the fleet as long as it is considered more than 100 seats...as pay rates are the same regardless of what aircraft and any new aircraft that enters the fleet(the only issue that would prevent a Flight Attendant is not being qualified, but of course that can be resolved in a matter of a few days of training).
but here is the catch, the name has to remain NW, as the contract defines all flying by NW Pilots are flown exclusively by NW Flight Attendants, so they can put a DL 777 anywhere they want in a merger as...long...as the pilots have agreed to allow that(combined pilot contract is in place at day one)... our contract defines we fly exclusively what a NW pilot will fly, not exclusively what a DL pilot flies(as long as there is a modified pilot contract) during the certification process both operations are seperate..So scope is not violated. Does that make sense?
The gateways are mentioned in the contract in the event of a partial sale and defines assets.. that would allow a Flight Attendant to transfer over to a successor in the event a sole "gateway/hub operation" sale. To my understanding it is not in place to define not allowing an aircraft to be utilized, rather than to protect the interest of the Flight Attendants having a written agreement to transfer over in the event the assets were sold off instead of the whole operation. Its just another definition breakdown offering job protections in writing.
(that's why its the best in the industry, it covers basically it all) and writing both groups should absolutely have in place going forward.
Initially there will probably be changes, it should be expected on both sides(especially with a ratified Pilot contract in place), aircraft being deployed on some routes, and some on another...after the certification is complete it all levels out. Some bases will have new aircraft and some will have new routes but then the Flight Attendant qualifications(both sides) for these new aircraft will already be in place and business as usual.
But of course, this is just an opinion.
North by Northwest
Veteran
Dignity-
I'll refer you to the Scope section of the contract. Our scope goes beyond just flying with the pilots. It covers routes independently of the pilots on routes to and from specific HUBS and GateWays to the Pacific and Atlantic. Thus DTW, MSP, Gateways to NRT would be a violation of our scope. Therefore, the New Delta may not just place a 777 with Delta crews on those routes until there is a single operating certificate or a side letter of agreement from the Union. I think you are mis understanding the intent in that the Scope language is tied only to NW pilots, which is NOT the case. The Scope language addresses the the routes of the Pacific and Atlantic entities with or with out NW pilots. NW may certainly "transfer" those routes to New Delta...as long as NW Cabin Crew are transferred with them and flown with them. This must be until there is a single operating certificate at which time New Delta can fly anyone on the "merged" seniority list. THAT is a long way off.
Section 2 of Scope is very clear in it's reference to "merger, or partial transactions". With or without NW or former NW pilots, those routes may not be flown by crews of any carrier other than NW Cabin Crew before a single operating certificate allows it. Now, the New Delta certainly has the option of certifying NW crews to operate on 777's therefore maintaining the sanctity of the contract while it is piloted by Delta pilots.
The Union can simply seek damages or an injuction preventing it. I hardly think AFA is in any mood to grant the New Delta anything...unless there is a HUGE carrot.
I'll refer you to the Scope section of the contract. Our scope goes beyond just flying with the pilots. It covers routes independently of the pilots on routes to and from specific HUBS and GateWays to the Pacific and Atlantic. Thus DTW, MSP, Gateways to NRT would be a violation of our scope. Therefore, the New Delta may not just place a 777 with Delta crews on those routes until there is a single operating certificate or a side letter of agreement from the Union. I think you are mis understanding the intent in that the Scope language is tied only to NW pilots, which is NOT the case. The Scope language addresses the the routes of the Pacific and Atlantic entities with or with out NW pilots. NW may certainly "transfer" those routes to New Delta...as long as NW Cabin Crew are transferred with them and flown with them. This must be until there is a single operating certificate at which time New Delta can fly anyone on the "merged" seniority list. THAT is a long way off.
Section 2 of Scope is very clear in it's reference to "merger, or partial transactions". With or without NW or former NW pilots, those routes may not be flown by crews of any carrier other than NW Cabin Crew before a single operating certificate allows it. Now, the New Delta certainly has the option of certifying NW crews to operate on 777's therefore maintaining the sanctity of the contract while it is piloted by Delta pilots.
The Union can simply seek damages or an injuction preventing it. I hardly think AFA is in any mood to grant the New Delta anything...unless there is a HUGE carrot.
North,
I see, I am looking at it from a perspective of the merger and certification completed. Meaning if a 747 is moved to another hub there will need to be a replacement of that aircraft on that particular route(probably another wide body).
Section 2 also provide compensation as well..I also understand that scope will allocate any new flying to the Flight Attendants first.. if not the agreement allows for compensation as a penalty(if that is not the case) so its just another form of protection including the Pacific region simply defines what the foreign nationals are permitted. But I am not reading where they can prevent an aircraft being utilized at all.
So for example, a 747 was placed in another hub and the route was replaced with a 777, technically we are supposed to be awarded that flying, however if not that is when scope offers an alternative if they choose to not immediately crew those positions with those covered under the contract, so instead of them just doing as they please, they would have to pay the Flight Attendant for that loss of trip and flying however still being awarded the flying on the 747 patterns(regardless of where it is deployed)
I see, I am looking at it from a perspective of the merger and certification completed. Meaning if a 747 is moved to another hub there will need to be a replacement of that aircraft on that particular route(probably another wide body).
Section 2 also provide compensation as well..I also understand that scope will allocate any new flying to the Flight Attendants first.. if not the agreement allows for compensation as a penalty(if that is not the case) so its just another form of protection including the Pacific region simply defines what the foreign nationals are permitted. But I am not reading where they can prevent an aircraft being utilized at all.
So for example, a 747 was placed in another hub and the route was replaced with a 777, technically we are supposed to be awarded that flying, however if not that is when scope offers an alternative if they choose to not immediately crew those positions with those covered under the contract, so instead of them just doing as they please, they would have to pay the Flight Attendant for that loss of trip and flying however still being awarded the flying on the 747 patterns(regardless of where it is deployed)
