C44 Recall
06-14-2024, 08:52 AM
#371
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 710
From the pilot deadheading on a flight segment to the pilot serving as an operational crew member on that same flight segment, provided the change is proferred to the pilot and has accepted such proffer.
In that circumstance, the pilot will receive
Single pay and credit plus
Single pay no credit (in addition to any other form of pay) for the changed flight segment
If the pilot declines the proffer, the pilot will remain on the originally scheduled deadhead, unless the company chooses to remove the pilot under Section 4 E 1
Exception: once a pilot reports for a deadhead-only duty period, such deadhead cannot be changed to have the pilot serve as an operational crew member on that same flight segment.
Note: such change to a pilot’s rotation under paragraph 2 of this MOU is limited to a single flight segment
06-14-2024, 08:54 AM
#372
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 321
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 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.
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, 09:08 AM
#373
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,456
I think sometimes it’s better to try your luck with the system. For my situation this was an automated RR find by ACE. After doing a bit of homework in the SRH I found examples that were defined as a RR and the company was trying their luck to get ALPA/arbitrator to save them money.
I agree with scoop that this isn’t a “burn it down” agreement by itself, but I don’t like the ongoing pattern of: negotiate rule, company changes rules, agree to rewrite rules in company’s favor.
I agree with scoop that this isn’t a “burn it down” agreement by itself, but I don’t like the ongoing pattern of: negotiate rule, company changes rules, agree to rewrite rules in company’s favor.
06-14-2024, 09:20 AM
#374
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,456
And what if we'd won? At this point, I expect the company to keep moving onto something else in the PWA they want improved in their favor. When we're clearly scared of the big bad arbitrator, and we just give stuff away like batch sizes, why wouldn't they keep pressing to test
Edit to add that I understand there is a needle to thread wrt to grievance settlement/arbitration. But you can't always be scared of arbitration.
Edit to add that I understand there is a needle to thread wrt to grievance settlement/arbitration. But you can't always be scared of arbitration.
06-14-2024, 09:27 AM
#375
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,456
06-14-2024, 09:45 AM
#376
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 777
Reading the policy manual, which is somewhat eye-opening…a majority of the MEC would have needed to reject the settlement. And even that would not have completely killed it.
once the MEC chair brings something like this forward, even without being directed by the MEC, it seems difficult to turn it off. Especially with C44 reps ready to grant blanket approval for whatever DH/the lawyer put in front of them.
once the MEC chair brings something like this forward, even without being directed by the MEC, it seems difficult to turn it off. Especially with C44 reps ready to grant blanket approval for whatever DH/the lawyer put in front of them.
06-14-2024, 10:15 AM
#377
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 180
Some of you are seemingly latching on to anything and trying to twist it to support whatever platform and agenda you’re trying to run around here. I don’t even see what this settlement has to do with the C44 reps.
06-14-2024, 10:35 AM
#378
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,521
Don't forget what PB said; "It's not a contract violation unless/until the arbritator says so".
06-14-2024, 10:42 AM
#379
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,521
No one is appeasing. This settlement seems reasonable to me. The grievance process can be abused and it is better (in my opinion) to settle it with a deal that provides a win for the pilots rather than risk an unfavorable ruling that’s harms us. Arbitration is not a guarantee and given the recent history I DO almost prefer a settlement in this case.
Some of you are seemingly latching on to anything and trying to twist it to support whatever platform and agenda you’re trying to run around here. I don’t even see what this settlement has to do with the C44 reps.
Some of you are seemingly latching on to anything and trying to twist it to support whatever platform and agenda you’re trying to run around here. I don’t even see what this settlement has to do with the C44 reps.
Reminds me of a Blue Oyster Cult song. Instead of "Don't fear the Reaper" it should be "Don't fear the Arbitrator". But it seems DALPA is afraid. And willing to trade away parts of the PWA to avoid.
06-14-2024, 10:44 AM
#380
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 777
The company has a strategy here, they have nibbled away at 3 things in the PWA thus far. How many more until you wake up? This is outside section 6. So they pretty much are being given free reign to "re-interpret" since we have a compliant MEC and a very compliant MEC Chariman at the helm. DH, the rest need to go. Enough already.
And who knows what kind of MEC chairman we will all get, and how bad the settlments will be, if the current C44 reps get to stick around and jam their candidate through.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
