Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Trip7

On complex PWA sections like Scope it seems like it's easier for some folks to just personally attack others rather than address exactly what they mean by improve Scope language.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Gunfighter

I think one improvement that most of us consider necessary is a 50% split. Close to half is not half.



We need to address scope in EVERY contract. Small incremental improvements add up over several contract cycles. This is the opposite of the gradual scope erosion the company is working toward.

Forcing Delta WB growth by maxing out our JV contract partners is not scope protection, it is a lopsided agreement. Nobody with a reasonable approach to the contract is claiming we will "lose serious WB jobs", they are advocating for improvements in our contract during record profits.

The JV growth is close to equitable, but the overwhelming stance of Delta pilots is that we are a few percent short of where we should be. Delta has been very clear that the US based pilots are just one division of this worldly airline conglomerate.

Originally Posted by Planetrain

What would be your ideal split for Virgin Atlantic and us?