Jaww

Not to mention that the company didn’t implement VB within the prescribed time period and ALPA was fully within its rights to cancel the agreement because of that. Don’t leave that part out. If it was so important to delta you think they would have acted on it in the required time period.

igotgummed

Sure, it would’ve been great for MCO until Mgmt decided to pull it out of MCO and put it somewhere else. IIRC the language wasn’t strong enough to make sure it stayed in MCO.

brakechatter

Better synopsis. The flying could have been pulled from any one or all bases and was entirely at the discretion of the Company, hence part of the angst the MEC had -- the unknown. The violation of seniority -- having to be on the piece of equipment in order to bid the base -- was additional heartache, although seemingly less of a factor. My personal opinion was the greatest contributor to the pulldown was the lack of progress from the Company over the AM JV negotiations along with a few other areas of leftover frustration from some of the concessions of C2015 that the Company was exploiting (eg Company setting the value of SILs). There were a few reps, including C44 as I recall who wanted to let the process play out for a bit and gather the data of the Company's implementation plans, while seemingly not supporting the ongoing use of VB as directed. They were in the minority. There was also discussion of letting TDYs continue while pulling down VB, but that too did not carry the majority and the whole LOA was pulled -- in an optimal timeframe.

This is not correct. There was no required timeline that the Company had to meet, although their lack of implementation in a more timely manner was more fodder for the pulldown -- again, based mostly on other factors IMO. Either side could pull down part or all of the agreement with the required notice, I think it was 45 days but that penguin might have fallen off of the iceberg.

Gone Flying

I was under the impression flying had to be pulled from the base the pilot bid from. EG if MCO7ER had been 50% ATL pilots, 35% NYC pilots and 15% DTW pilots, that’s the breakdown of flying that MCO would have had to had.

but kinda moot anyway as no base owns flying.

Scoop

That is the way I remember it also. IMHO it was a missed opportunity - All DALPA had to do was insist the unilateral pull down capability was permanent. If the company would not agree to that then - No Deal. If the company did agree to that it would have allowed DALPA to continually decide if it was beneficial to the Pilots or not.

The potential disruption to the flying distribution was never understood by a lot of Pilots and was exploited by those who did not want this. The reduction in "credit time" via DHs was real, but we will never know the extent and how it might have affected the Pilot group as a whole.

In any case I believe the Union pulled it down as part of a bigger strategic move and that's fine, but it would have been nice to have tried it if we kept the unilateral pull down capability.

Scoop

bugman61

MOU 16-03 was signed with the contract and effective on 12/1/16. Paragraph 4.A. stated it was effective for 1 year unless extended. No action was taken to extend, and the company didn’t announce a virtual base until June 2018. So while alpa just exercised their pulldown language, had that not been there they could have shut it down because the MOU was expired.

Jaww

Thanks bug. It’s amazing how quickly people forget.

ancman

Exactly. Our pull down language gave us plenty of control. We could have asked for permanent pull down language, more control over monthly VB parameters, and an additional quid as well. Instead, ALPA simply pulled the whole thing prematurely out of irrational fear.

What happened very soon after the VB/TDY MOU was pulled? The largest reduction in credit this pilot group has ever seen. The company didn’t need VBs to do it.

brakechatter

Didn't forget anything. The team that negotiated it did. Stand by my post, except to clarify that the company could not just unilaterally pull time from any base, while at the same time being in complete control of the outcome of where the time came from, if any. Somewhat akin to the AE process.
Neither was the point of the post -- in that the pulldown was not some mentality to protect the PTC mafia.

TED74

Of course they didn’t need VBs to reduce credit. Had we given them VBs, it would have been even worse.

Any other straw men?