Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-09-2013, 02:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Shirley, you aren't comparing the two sites for entertainment value or, more importantly, accuracy of info. If so, you are banned to the dungeon that is the DALPA forum. Wear your cod piece.
06-09-2013, 02:12 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
Seems to me that if National had prevented the Pinnacle pilots from doing something any other pilot group could do, then that would be a conflict of interest.
06-09-2013, 02:20 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
The changes to the Delta Pilot Working Agreement were additions which amended Sections 1 D 12 and 1 D 11. ALPA's Administrative Manual, Section 40, Part 5, directs a best effort be made to secure first right of interview for displaced ALPA members. The Delta PWA honored this Admin Manual directive. The Pinnacle pilots modified our contract to favor their most senior employed Captains first. By doing so they unfairly diminished the interview rights of other ALPA members. Also, we typically negotiate flown down language to provide additional job security for Delta pilots, should we be furloughed. These bilateral provisions are absent.
The fact that Pinnacle pilots have preferential interviews and hiring doesn't change the fact that Delta is still obligated to Section 1.D.11 and 1.D.12, no?
06-09-2013, 02:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,177
DPA is amazed to learn that, once again, ALPA is not interested in enforcing existing scope language. Not only is Delta out of compliance in the Atlantic (AF/KLM JV), but now Delta is also out of compliance in the Pacific. Instead of enforcing existing language, ALPA has granted relief, costing all of us jobs and progression.
ALPA is not interested in representing the Delta Pilot group any longer as is evidenced by their inaction. Poorly crafted scope language is already allowing Delta to operate at least 9 daily round trip A330 flights across the Atlantic LESS THAN REQUIRED without penalty. Now we learn that Delta plans to operate 28 daily flights in the Pacific LESS THAN REQUIRED and without penalty and ALPA is okay with it.
How many wide-body jobs are gone as a result of ALPA's refusal to craft or enforce any meaningful JV scope language? When will Delta Pilots realize that ALPA is incapable of properly representing us?
I find it simply amazing that I find out more abou what the company is doing from an organization that is trying to become our representation rather than the one we have ALPA. Where is the outrage with our current unions inaction on the information above on regards to international scope?
ALPA is not interested in representing the Delta Pilot group any longer as is evidenced by their inaction. Poorly crafted scope language is already allowing Delta to operate at least 9 daily round trip A330 flights across the Atlantic LESS THAN REQUIRED without penalty. Now we learn that Delta plans to operate 28 daily flights in the Pacific LESS THAN REQUIRED and without penalty and ALPA is okay with it.
How many wide-body jobs are gone as a result of ALPA's refusal to craft or enforce any meaningful JV scope language? When will Delta Pilots realize that ALPA is incapable of properly representing us?
I find it simply amazing that I find out more abou what the company is doing from an organization that is trying to become our representation rather than the one we have ALPA. Where is the outrage with our current unions inaction on the information above on regards to international scope?
AF/KLM JV is NOT out of compliance. Again, DPA knows this, but they keep publishing this to try and gain a foothold. The 3 year window was agreed to when Alitalia joined the JV on the other side of the Atlantic. Management is currently in the compliance window, and still has time to return to compliance, be it through DL growth over the Atlantic or the Euros pulling down (more likely). We may not like the 3 year window, but it is in the contract and is NOT currently out of compliance.
Next....
In the Pacific, Delta is NOT out of compliance (notice a trend here with DPA's "facts"?) Due to economic realities of the NRT hub, along with Haneda, Open Skies Negotiations, etc Delta will have to do something to maintain a presence in the Pacific. The MEC has the ability, via the contract to grant relief to the company for the 316 weekly NRT departures. The important thing to note here is overall Pacific flying is up thanks to NRT overflight routes, and is looking like it will continue that way. No WB jobs are being sacrificed or given up - another claim DPA made in the email that isn't true.
We can either dig our heels in and try to force the company to maintain the 316, or we can meet them at the table pre-emptively to try and come up with a scope amendment that allows the company to continue to make money in the Pacific, yet still protect our WB positions.
We haven't heard yet what the "opportunities" might be, specifically, because the negotiations haven't concluded yet. IF DALPA and the company fail to come to an agreement by this fall, the 316 compliance requirement snaps back into play and we would be able to pursue remedy via the grievance process. Rather than both sides shed blood, we're first going to try to find a solution that works for us and the company. Don't know about you, but I'd like to try and get something out of this. If nothing materializes, then I expect we will grieve away. Either way, the MEC felt a mutually beneficial solution was likely enough to be worth pursuing, and here we are.
Again, like it or hate it, the company is NOT out of compliance in the Pacific (DPA myth debunked again) - and we have an opportunity to improve our scope as the Pacific situation evolves. To put it another way, what do we as pilots expect the company to do if/when Haneda finally supplants our NRT operation and the Japanese get their way? Is DL supposed to run empty airplanes just because the PWA says so? That's the direction that things are tracking and the company wisely is trying to make adjustments ahead of time. If we are able to extract a few goodies from them, for playing nice, then why not give it a shot? Again, we can always fall back to a more adversarial stance (if it were to become necessary) if the company and DALPA can't reach an agreement on how to proceed.
Further, this is an example of change for the better. In the past this is something that we would hear about AFTER the LOA had been signed. Your MEC is seeking pilot input on the matter due to feedback from the group saying that we don't want to find out about deals after the fact. This is our opportunity to influence the outcome. Don't let your concerns go unheard.
06-09-2013, 02:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny,
It is a huge difference. We obviously do not control management.
Agreed.
ALPA, OUR UNION, authorizes pilot bargaining. ALPA is an exclusive agent. Exclusive means ONE. ALPA speaks for Pinnacle just as it speaks for Delta (or any other represented pilot group).
Actually our section 1. A. 1. states:
the Company recognizes the Air Line Pilots Association, International, as the duly designated and authorized representative of the Flight Deck Crewmembers in the service of the Company for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
It doesn't mention "exclusive" anywhere. But, yes, ALPA speaks for both the Delta and Pinnacle pilot groups.
In the past ALPA would not empower an express pilot group to sit down at the table with another airline's management and negotiate a contract which controls that airline's flying.
This is the precedent none of us likes.
The Delta pilots PERMIT some flying to be done off the Delta list. This flying remains Delta flying.
Okay, I can agree with this wording.
ALPA is trying to create a precedent by which PERMITTED FLYING can be traded to another pilot group. ALPA is doing this by trying to redefine Delta flying to just that flying which we perform. ALPA has mostly sold our MEC on the idea that flying we permit to be performed elsewhere is no longer Delta flying. Unfortunately, our MEC keeps went to ALPA National Attorneys for legal opinions on the behavior of ALPA National. Of course these attorneys created legal reasoning which justified the actions of the name at the upper left corner of their paychecks (metaphorically speaking).
This is where I think you go off base. Permitted flying is not being traded. We contractually allow a certain amount of it to be outsourced (not a good thing). With the Pinnacle agreement have we "lost" any flying? No we haven't lost anything that wasn't already outsourced. I would like to see where anyone from Alpa/Dalpa says that we, the Delta Pilots, have given up rights to that flying. We have allowed a certain amount of flying to be outsourced and the Pinnacle pilots have negotiated a percentage of that outsourced flying.
No comment on the legal stuff.....
ALPA's sale of our permitted flying was bought with concessions. Other pilots are now being pushed into concessions to compete.
I cannot agree with the idea that "sold" our flying. Cannot disagree with the latter.
The reason for ALPA's change is to facilitate the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. This is the opposite of unity. It is the opposite of what a union should do.
Not quite sure what you are saying here. How has ALPA sold one members job to benefit another? I don't see it.
So you may ask, "Why should I care?"
The reason you should care is because once a separate, lower, standard is established, how do we negotiate better (pick an issue - rest / crew meals / bidding / time off / reserve rules / safety ) when ALPA has accepted the lower standard on the Delta property with a group of pilots performing Delta flying?
I think you are blowing this waaayyyy out of proportion. There are any number of pilot groups that perform this permitted/outsourced flying that are represented by unions. Have any of these agreements caused us to lower our standards in the past?
When Dave Behncke founded our union the cornerstone of his approach was "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem." Unsafe scheduling was unsafe scheduling no matter where it occurred. He fought for a single, improved, standard for our profession.
It is a huge difference. We obviously do not control management.
Agreed.
ALPA, OUR UNION, authorizes pilot bargaining. ALPA is an exclusive agent. Exclusive means ONE. ALPA speaks for Pinnacle just as it speaks for Delta (or any other represented pilot group).
Actually our section 1. A. 1. states:
the Company recognizes the Air Line Pilots Association, International, as the duly designated and authorized representative of the Flight Deck Crewmembers in the service of the Company for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
It doesn't mention "exclusive" anywhere. But, yes, ALPA speaks for both the Delta and Pinnacle pilot groups.
In the past ALPA would not empower an express pilot group to sit down at the table with another airline's management and negotiate a contract which controls that airline's flying.
This is the precedent none of us likes.
The Delta pilots PERMIT some flying to be done off the Delta list. This flying remains Delta flying.
Okay, I can agree with this wording.
ALPA is trying to create a precedent by which PERMITTED FLYING can be traded to another pilot group. ALPA is doing this by trying to redefine Delta flying to just that flying which we perform. ALPA has mostly sold our MEC on the idea that flying we permit to be performed elsewhere is no longer Delta flying. Unfortunately, our MEC keeps went to ALPA National Attorneys for legal opinions on the behavior of ALPA National. Of course these attorneys created legal reasoning which justified the actions of the name at the upper left corner of their paychecks (metaphorically speaking).
This is where I think you go off base. Permitted flying is not being traded. We contractually allow a certain amount of it to be outsourced (not a good thing). With the Pinnacle agreement have we "lost" any flying? No we haven't lost anything that wasn't already outsourced. I would like to see where anyone from Alpa/Dalpa says that we, the Delta Pilots, have given up rights to that flying. We have allowed a certain amount of flying to be outsourced and the Pinnacle pilots have negotiated a percentage of that outsourced flying.
No comment on the legal stuff.....
ALPA's sale of our permitted flying was bought with concessions. Other pilots are now being pushed into concessions to compete.
I cannot agree with the idea that "sold" our flying. Cannot disagree with the latter.
The reason for ALPA's change is to facilitate the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. This is the opposite of unity. It is the opposite of what a union should do.
Not quite sure what you are saying here. How has ALPA sold one members job to benefit another? I don't see it.
So you may ask, "Why should I care?"
The reason you should care is because once a separate, lower, standard is established, how do we negotiate better (pick an issue - rest / crew meals / bidding / time off / reserve rules / safety ) when ALPA has accepted the lower standard on the Delta property with a group of pilots performing Delta flying?
I think you are blowing this waaayyyy out of proportion. There are any number of pilot groups that perform this permitted/outsourced flying that are represented by unions. Have any of these agreements caused us to lower our standards in the past?
When Dave Behncke founded our union the cornerstone of his approach was "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem." Unsafe scheduling was unsafe scheduling no matter where it occurred. He fought for a single, improved, standard for our profession.
Since I'm computer illiterate I responded the best way I could!
Denny
06-09-2013, 02:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Well, you don't choose a cat.........a cat chooses you. Mine died awhile back and even though I was told I could choose the replacement.......I didn't. It wouldn't have mattered anyway, all I am to her cats is the guy who bumps them off their side of the bed when I'm home That and the little creeps have never understood who REALLY buys the kibble
That and the little creeps have never understood who REALLY buys the kibble
06-09-2013, 03:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Denny,
It is a huge difference. We obviously do not control management.
ALPA, OUR UNION, authorizes pilot bargaining. ALPA is an exclusive agent. Exclusive means ONE. ALPA speaks for Pinnacle just as it speaks for Delta (or any other represented pilot group).
In the past ALPA would not empower an express pilot group to sit down at the table with another airline's management and negotiate a contract which controls that airline's flying.
The Delta pilots PERMIT some flying to be done off the Delta list. This flying remains Delta flying.
ALPA is trying to create a precedent by which PERMITTED FLYING can be traded to another pilot group. ALPA is doing this by trying to redefine Delta flying to just that flying which we perform. ALPA has mostly sold our MEC on the idea that flying we permit to be performed elsewhere is no longer Delta flying. Unfortunately, our MEC keeps went to ALPA National Attorneys for legal opinions on the behavior of ALPA National. Of course these attorneys created legal reasoning which justified the actions of the name at the upper left corner of their paychecks (metaphorically speaking).
ALPA's sale of our permitted flying was bought with concessions. Other pilots are now being pushed into concessions to compete.
The reason for ALPA's change is to facilitate the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. This is the opposite of unity. It is the opposite of what a union should do.
So you may ask, "Why should I care?"
The reason you should care is because once a separate, lower, standard is established, how do we negotiate better (pick an issue - rest / crew meals / bidding / time off / reserve rules / safety ) when ALPA has accepted the lower standard on the Delta property with a group of pilots performing Delta flying?
When Dave Behncke founded our union the cornerstone of his approach was "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem." Unsafe scheduling was unsafe scheduling no matter where it occurred. He fought for a single, improved, standard for our profession.
It is a huge difference. We obviously do not control management.
ALPA, OUR UNION, authorizes pilot bargaining. ALPA is an exclusive agent. Exclusive means ONE. ALPA speaks for Pinnacle just as it speaks for Delta (or any other represented pilot group).
In the past ALPA would not empower an express pilot group to sit down at the table with another airline's management and negotiate a contract which controls that airline's flying.
The Delta pilots PERMIT some flying to be done off the Delta list. This flying remains Delta flying.
ALPA is trying to create a precedent by which PERMITTED FLYING can be traded to another pilot group. ALPA is doing this by trying to redefine Delta flying to just that flying which we perform. ALPA has mostly sold our MEC on the idea that flying we permit to be performed elsewhere is no longer Delta flying. Unfortunately, our MEC keeps went to ALPA National Attorneys for legal opinions on the behavior of ALPA National. Of course these attorneys created legal reasoning which justified the actions of the name at the upper left corner of their paychecks (metaphorically speaking).
ALPA's sale of our permitted flying was bought with concessions. Other pilots are now being pushed into concessions to compete.
The reason for ALPA's change is to facilitate the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. This is the opposite of unity. It is the opposite of what a union should do.
So you may ask, "Why should I care?"
The reason you should care is because once a separate, lower, standard is established, how do we negotiate better (pick an issue - rest / crew meals / bidding / time off / reserve rules / safety ) when ALPA has accepted the lower standard on the Delta property with a group of pilots performing Delta flying?
When Dave Behncke founded our union the cornerstone of his approach was "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem." Unsafe scheduling was unsafe scheduling no matter where it occurred. He fought for a single, improved, standard for our profession.
06-09-2013, 03:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 264
This was hashed out a few days ago when the DPA mailer first went out. DPA certainly does pride itself on providing "facts". Unfortunately, their "facts" are not correct - but what's new there?
AF/KLM JV is NOT out of compliance. Again, DPA knows this, but they keep publishing this to try and gain a foothold. The 3 year window was agreed to when Alitalia joined the JV on the other side of the Atlantic. Management is currently in the compliance window, and still has time to return to compliance, be it through DL growth over the Atlantic or the Euros pulling down (more likely). We may not like the 3 year window, but it is in the contract and is NOT currently out of compliance.
Next....
In the Pacific, Delta is NOT out of compliance (notice a trend here with DPA's "facts"?) Due to economic realities of the NRT hub, along with Haneda, Open Skies Negotiations, etc Delta will have to do something to maintain a presence in the Pacific. The MEC has the ability, via the contract to grant relief to the company for the 316 weekly NRT departures. The important thing to note here is overall Pacific flying is up thanks to NRT overflight routes, and is looking like it will continue that way. No WB jobs are being sacrificed or given up - another claim DPA made in the email that isn't true.
We can either dig our heels in and try to force the company to maintain the 316, or we can meet them at the table pre-emptively to try and come up with a scope amendment that allows the company to continue to make money in the Pacific, yet still protect our WB positions.
We haven't heard yet what the "opportunities" might be, specifically, because the negotiations haven't concluded yet. IF DALPA and the company fail to come to an agreement by this fall, the 316 compliance requirement snaps back into play and we would be able to pursue remedy via the grievance process. Rather than both sides shed blood, we're first going to try to find a solution that works for us and the company. Don't know about you, but I'd like to try and get something out of this. If nothing materializes, then I expect we will grieve away. Either way, the MEC felt a mutually beneficial solution was likely enough to be worth pursuing, and here we are.
Again, like it or hate it, the company is NOT out of compliance in the Pacific (DPA myth debunked again) - and we have an opportunity to improve our scope as the Pacific situation evolves. To put it another way, what do we as pilots expect the company to do if/when Haneda finally supplants our NRT operation and the Japanese get their way? Is DL supposed to run empty airplanes just because the PWA says so? That's the direction that things are tracking and the company wisely is trying to make adjustments ahead of time. If we are able to extract a few goodies from them, for playing nice, then why not give it a shot? Again, we can always fall back to a more adversarial stance (if it were to become necessary) if the company and DALPA can't reach an agreement on how to proceed.
Further, this is an example of change for the better. In the past this is something that we would hear about AFTER the LOA had been signed. Your MEC is seeking pilot input on the matter due to feedback from the group saying that we don't want to find out about deals after the fact. This is our opportunity to influence the outcome. Don't let your concerns go unheard.
AF/KLM JV is NOT out of compliance. Again, DPA knows this, but they keep publishing this to try and gain a foothold. The 3 year window was agreed to when Alitalia joined the JV on the other side of the Atlantic. Management is currently in the compliance window, and still has time to return to compliance, be it through DL growth over the Atlantic or the Euros pulling down (more likely). We may not like the 3 year window, but it is in the contract and is NOT currently out of compliance.
Next....
In the Pacific, Delta is NOT out of compliance (notice a trend here with DPA's "facts"?) Due to economic realities of the NRT hub, along with Haneda, Open Skies Negotiations, etc Delta will have to do something to maintain a presence in the Pacific. The MEC has the ability, via the contract to grant relief to the company for the 316 weekly NRT departures. The important thing to note here is overall Pacific flying is up thanks to NRT overflight routes, and is looking like it will continue that way. No WB jobs are being sacrificed or given up - another claim DPA made in the email that isn't true.
We can either dig our heels in and try to force the company to maintain the 316, or we can meet them at the table pre-emptively to try and come up with a scope amendment that allows the company to continue to make money in the Pacific, yet still protect our WB positions.
We haven't heard yet what the "opportunities" might be, specifically, because the negotiations haven't concluded yet. IF DALPA and the company fail to come to an agreement by this fall, the 316 compliance requirement snaps back into play and we would be able to pursue remedy via the grievance process. Rather than both sides shed blood, we're first going to try to find a solution that works for us and the company. Don't know about you, but I'd like to try and get something out of this. If nothing materializes, then I expect we will grieve away. Either way, the MEC felt a mutually beneficial solution was likely enough to be worth pursuing, and here we are.
Again, like it or hate it, the company is NOT out of compliance in the Pacific (DPA myth debunked again) - and we have an opportunity to improve our scope as the Pacific situation evolves. To put it another way, what do we as pilots expect the company to do if/when Haneda finally supplants our NRT operation and the Japanese get their way? Is DL supposed to run empty airplanes just because the PWA says so? That's the direction that things are tracking and the company wisely is trying to make adjustments ahead of time. If we are able to extract a few goodies from them, for playing nice, then why not give it a shot? Again, we can always fall back to a more adversarial stance (if it were to become necessary) if the company and DALPA can't reach an agreement on how to proceed.
Further, this is an example of change for the better. In the past this is something that we would hear about AFTER the LOA had been signed. Your MEC is seeking pilot input on the matter due to feedback from the group saying that we don't want to find out about deals after the fact. This is our opportunity to influence the outcome. Don't let your concerns go unheard.
06-09-2013, 03:16 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
We most certainly can "change it." Kick ALPA out. And after this latest buffoonery...kick them in between the legs. Oh, wait...there's nothing there to harm.
06-09-2013, 03:18 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
