C44 Recall
06-14-2024, 06:08 AM
#361
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 180
This is at least twice in DH's term that he has blinked when mgmt played chicken with him. Mgmt was bluffing on this. They wanted to settle this one badly. Didn't consult the MEC. Just did his own thing without guidance from the MEC. AGAIN.
That's what he gets when he listens to the crippliningly risk averse ALPA attorney instead of being in sync with the pilots. And guess who follows him down that path every. Single. Time.
That's right! The C44 reps.
On second thought, maybe DH did have some guidance; it's quite likely the C44 reps pressured him behind the scenes to settle this.
Who knows how many more grievances they'll push to be settled in the company's favor like this until March 1!
That's what he gets when he listens to the crippliningly risk averse ALPA attorney instead of being in sync with the pilots. And guess who follows him down that path every. Single. Time.
That's right! The C44 reps.
On second thought, maybe DH did have some guidance; it's quite likely the C44 reps pressured him behind the scenes to settle this.
Who knows how many more grievances they'll push to be settled in the company's favor like this until March 1!
I get it, you don’t like the C44 Reps or the current leadership. I have my reservations too. But much of what you’re saying here is nonsense.
06-14-2024, 06:15 AM
#362
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 777
This settlement appears to have resolved grievance 18-12, which implies this dispute has existed since 2018. Which is over half a decade ago.
There must have been a good reason that none of the admins over that time period (including Bartels, Schnitzler, Ambrosi, and now Hartman) wanted to take this to an arbitrator. That tells me a lot about how weak our case may have been.
.
There must have been a good reason that none of the admins over that time period (including Bartels, Schnitzler, Ambrosi, and now Hartman) wanted to take this to an arbitrator. That tells me a lot about how weak our case may have been.
.
The common theme in all those admins is a risk-averse ALPA National attorney who works out of the Altanta office and is essentially DALPA's chief counsel. He is, from what I understand, very well-versed in creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in MEC chairmen and the MEC when it comes to arbitrating grievances. And let's face it, settling a grievance is far less work for an attorney on salary. He's going to make the same no matter what. As long as ALPA National is free from any legal exposure, he has no skin in the game.
And MEC chairmen, including those you mentioned, seem to abdicate leadership to an irrational degree when it comes to letting the lawyers run the show. It appears that Ambrosi and the C19 MEC were the best about standing up to him, as seen in some aggressive tactics leading up to Bastian's morning TV show blunder.
Hartmann seems to be by far the worst about letting the ALPA attorney walk all over him. And the C44 reps are just fine with that.
06-14-2024, 06:17 AM
#363
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,997
Well, guess who else didn't want to arbitrate it? THE COMPANY.
The common theme in all those admins is a risk-averse ALPA National attorney who works out of the Altanta office and is essentially DALPA's chief counsel. He is, from what I understand, very well-versed in creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in MEC chairmen and the MEC when it comes to arbitrating grievances. And MEC chairmen, including those you mentioned, seem to abdicate leadership to an irrational degree when it comes to letting the lawyers run the show.
Hartmann seems to be by far the worst about letting the ALPA attorney walk all over him. And the C44 reps are just fine with that.
The common theme in all those admins is a risk-averse ALPA National attorney who works out of the Altanta office and is essentially DALPA's chief counsel. He is, from what I understand, very well-versed in creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in MEC chairmen and the MEC when it comes to arbitrating grievances. And MEC chairmen, including those you mentioned, seem to abdicate leadership to an irrational degree when it comes to letting the lawyers run the show.
Hartmann seems to be by far the worst about letting the ALPA attorney walk all over him. And the C44 reps are just fine with that.
06-14-2024, 06:19 AM
#364
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 777
Where have you shown even the slightest level of "reservations" about the c44 reps? Your own agenda here has been to cover for them.
06-14-2024, 07:15 AM
#365
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 180
I’m not covering for them. I’ve only ever spoken with them a few times. And I think their recent council letter was super arrogant. But I don’t think they’re doing a bad job of representing us. No one has presented any conclusive evidence to the contrary. It’s all hyperbole and assumptions like what you posted above.
06-14-2024, 08:18 AM
#367
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,521
So we should throw arbitration out the window then? Sadly, it seems we have. That scneario is a win/win for the company. DALPA is afraid of it (well at least the counsel is), so we bargain with the company on something that was violated in our PWA to get a solution that favors the company 90% of the time and further erodes our protections in the PWA. Great strategy.
06-14-2024, 08:22 AM
#368
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 66
So we should throw arbitration out the window then? Sadly, it seems we have. That scneario is a win/win for the company. DALPA is afraid of it (well at least the counsel is), so we bargain with the company on something that was violated in our PWA to get a solution that favors the company 90% of the time and further erodes our protections in the PWA. Great strategy.
The idea that this is a recent thing is also myopic. "What's a SIL?"
06-14-2024, 08:32 AM
#369
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,456
Not 100% accurate. It can only be 1 leg, DH to flying or vice versa on the same flight, and DH to flying is by proffer only. Pays reroute pay and counts as a trigger for further RR pay (%150 to %200)
Any other change is still not allowed, and if violated pays assignment pay.
In exchange, after departure on the first leg, all DH to flying or vice versas on the same flight count as reroutes, so anyone who’s had that happen and has it in “impasse” needs to send a report, if you haven’t already, and make sure you get paid.
Any other change is still not allowed, and if violated pays assignment pay.
In exchange, after departure on the first leg, all DH to flying or vice versas on the same flight count as reroutes, so anyone who’s had that happen and has it in “impasse” needs to send a report, if you haven’t already, and make sure you get paid.
06-14-2024, 08:50 AM
#370
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Position: 737 A
Posts: 1,031
Deadheading to Operating:
Prior to the airborne departure of the first flight segment of a pilot’s rotation, if the Company desires to change a single flight segment on a rotation from the pilot deadheading to operating that same flight segment, they may do so only as a proffer to the pilot. If the pilot accepts the proffer, they will receive single pay, no credit for the changed flight segment, in addition to any other pay for the rotation. If the pilot declines the proffer, they will remain on the originally scheduled deadhead, unless the Company chooses to remove the pilot from all or a portion of their rotation under Section 4 E. 1. of the PWA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
