Trip7

You may have missed it but my original statement was there is no need to address Scope unless the company has an offer drastically in our favor. Our default section 1 language provides excellent protections in which our JV partners have already maxed out their flying. Nowhere to go but up for Delta WB flying.

The notion that if we don't address Scope this contract then we'll lose serious WB jobs as if Section 1 doesn't exist is false.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

GoneSailing

Our section one is virtually with not teeth. Even a Swiss cheese would be proud of those holes.

80ktsClamp

Exactly... numerous loop holes have been exploited, violations have occurred with minimal recourse (look at the Donatelli 30 million dollar joke before TA1), and so on.

Lots of shoring up needs to be happening...

notEnuf

I think that was said about the RJ expansion. We have been unable to put that genie back in the bottle. Now we have ownership and JVs with global airlines that do exactly the same job as we do and they operate at a lower cost. Small RJs declined because the they were not efficient, mainline and international size airplanes have exactly the opposite situation creating motivation to expand and shift flying to our “partners” because they are really a cheaper operational division of Delta.

20Fathoms

I think the point your peers are trying to make Trip is that Section 1 is good only if both sides follow the rules. Delta has willfully and repeatedly violated our scope clauses. Why? Because it makes financial sense to do so and then settle for pennies on the dollar. The bean counters love it. Section 1 is not rainbows and unicorns and will not be until it incorporates actual financial penalties for non-compliance that outweigh the financial incentive for violation.

astrojet

DL hates paying the high profit sharing...the only reason 80,000 employees get it is because the pilots have it in their contract. PS was a quid pro quo in exchange for 60%FAE...time to reverse it.

CBreezy

Trading profit sharing for a DB? PASS.

Gspeed

How do you prevent a “violation”? A violation means they didn’t adhere to the current contract as it is written. So how would new language change that? A violation is a violation, regardless of whatever the language says.

Therein lies the true power for corporations operating under the RLA: they are given the ability to continue running the operation while exploiting and violating CBA’s. Our general recourse, as a labor group, is to contest issues via arbitration. The company is free to push the limits of the CBA with their risk being employee goodwill and the occasional loss under arbitration. But a new (BETTER!) contract won’t change the course for a company who’s mantra is do what they want and deal with it in arbitration.

I came from a carrier who continually pursued this strategy to great effect. Delta, thankfully in my opinion, isn’t on their same level. But they aren’t innocent either and a simple leadership/strategy change could upend that at any time.

Anyway, my point is that if scope violations occur today under the current PWA, then they will likely occur “tomorrow” under a new PWA too unless the company feels that they can profitably operate within any agreed-to confines. Another tool to prevent this mentality is if the corporation views the labor force as unified (and ****ed) which could then severely damage their operational performance.

And no, don’t kid yourself by saying we should have language that gives severe financial penalties to the company should they violate the PWA. They’ll likely never agree to tie their hands in such a way that prevents them from seeking resolution via the RLA and arbitration. They’d actually be quite foolish to do so and I suspect they are smart enough to know that.

RonRicco

That is a false statement. PS was not a trade for the termination of the DB. Ask the guys who negotiated it in LOA 46. The DB was frozen with hopes of being able to thaw it later. PS was considered “schmuck” insurance for the pay cuts in case there was a quick rebound in the company.

Scoop

Correct. PS was LOA 46 Effective 01 December 2004 Signed by John Malone/Gerald Grinstein.

DAL filed for BK September 14, 2005.

Agreement not to fight the DB termination was LOA 51 Effective 01 June 2006 signed by Lee Moak/Gerald Grinstein.

Scoop