Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-09-2013, 03:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
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.
ALPA FACT SHEET
1. Dues structure: 1.95% (1.90% effective 2014). Almost twice as expensive as other independent unions.
2. Takes dues on profit sharing and other bonuses.
3. Refuses to publish online Flight Pay Loss (in dollars paid) for DALPA Reps back to 2010 when required by resolution and ignored.
4. Delta gives over $39,000,000 annually to ALPA National, 34% of its income. Delta Pilots get back only 1/3rd for our use.
5. ALPA’s NET assets fell to $39,000,000 as of 12/31/2012. MCF is at $33,000,000 in uncommitted funds, ½ of the $70M required.
6. ALPA dues ($53,305) were used in 2012 to send American Eagle regional pilots to Six Flags Over Texas and baseball games.
7. ALPA is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Delta Pilots have not approved this affiliation through a survey.
8. ALPA artificially lowered optional insurance rates below the ALPA negotiated Delta optional rates. Conflict of interest.
9. ALPA negotiated contracts are sloppy, full of loopholes and only enforced when it suits ALPA agendas. (Codeshare, bunks, etc.)
10. ALPA is unable to fully represent either side of a dual ALPA carrier merger. It must remain neutral or be sued.
11. Surveys results are not published, except the Age 60 survey which ALPA then ignored. No accountability. No unity.
12. ALPA refuses to follow survey results in selecting contract goals. Member mandates are ignored.
13. Delta Pilots are not allowed to vote for ALPA President/Officers or MEC Chairmen/Officers. Cronyism is rampant.
14. Conflict of Interest lawsuits are destroying ALPA finances. TWA - $1.7 Billion Damage Trial to conclude soon.
15. AirTran DFR, UAL Furlough Longevity and CAL Military lawsuits also currently in progress against ALPA. Legal fees are enormous.
16. Unity Resolution of 2000 affirms long-standing goal of recruiting independent unions, yet fails to represent current members.
17. Extravagant spending disrespects the membership. $360 per night hotel rooms, $1.5 Million BOD meeting on the beach in FL.
18. Refuses to publish online itemized pay and benefits received by local and national officers/representatives.
19. National officers/employees have a special pension benefit while the membership does not.
20. ALPA leaders often take management positions after union work is finished. Randy Babbitt is now SWA VP of Labor Relations.
21. Dues dollars are used to purchase alcohol at union meetings.
22. ALPA Toolbox is useless against a fellow ALPA carrier or any other carrier ALPA is attempting to recruit.
23. ALPA represents regional carriers. ALPA used the Delta contract to benefit regional members. (35% ALPA new hires, 76 seaters)
24. ALPA is allowing AF/KLM Joint Venture Scope non-compliance through a poorly crafted contract.
25. ALPA cannot stop trading scope for pay because it benefits its regional members.
26. ALPA designated reps are paid 92 hours monthly for position they could hold plus a $1,500/$1,000 stipend. Super seniority.
27. ALPA refuses to show the accounting books or officer names/salaries of offshore subsidiary Kitty Hawk Insurance Co.
28. ALPA National President received 2012 increase in total compensation from $540,408 to $576,968.
29. ALPA is $75M in debt. It is taking out more and more loans to cover legal expenses in multiple conflict of interest lawsuits.
30. ALPA’s first goal is to grow membership and associated dues income. Representing current members is secondary.
31. ALPA has taken in and been responsible for over $3 BILLION in total income since 2000. Has only $39M in NET assets left.
32. Minimum ALPA Designated Rep annual pay: CA Roberts - $283K, CA Van Sickle - $293K, FO Guilfoyle - $247K, FO Fries - $225K, CA Dominguez - $277K, FO Rogers - $247K, FO Olmstead - $225K, FO Coons - $229K – FO Nevins - $193K.
33. Jobs promised in last contract. No hiring for all of 2012 or 2013. 757s to be parked and 737s will replace..…pay cut.
34. ALPA Reps stated that Delta had no more left to give in last contract. Delta gives investors $1 BILLION (dividend and buyback) as a result. ALPA should have listened to the pilots instead of pursuing different agenda.
06-09-2013, 03:32 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
This has been covered thoroughly. You are looking in the wrong place and reaching an incorrect conclusion. Start with the Railway Labor Act and search Exclusive Agent.
I am on a phone and can not type, but this was covered extensively.
DALPA originally agreed to 76 seat outsourcing in exchange for "credits." Northwest's ziplines actually put dollar figures on the value of outsourcing. Small jet flying was sold in the hope cheaper flying would benefit some on the list with more money. Of course others on the list got furloughed.
This outsourced flying was sold again, with pay concessions for scope and a preferred hiring opportunity at Delta.
In my view it is immoral for a union to sell one member's job to benefit another member. We can not have unity when we sell our members.
06-09-2013, 03:41 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
So our PWA wasn't really modified? If it was, show me what language was modified. It still looks the same as it did before the Pinnacle agreement.
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?
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?
Do you mind reading this thread starting about December 27th of 2012? Do we really need to go though all of this again?
Do other readers want me to PM the materials, or put them here again for those who wont be bothered .... ?
06-09-2013, 04:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny,
This has been covered thoroughly. You are looking in the wrong place and reaching an incorrect conclusion. Start with the Railway Labor Act and search Exclusive Agent.
When you can, please enlighten me.
I am on a phone and can not type, but this was covered extensively.
Sorry but I must have missed it. What was covered extensively?
DALPA originally agreed to 76 seat outsourcing in exchange for "credits." Northwest's ziplines actually put dollar figures on the value of outsourcing. Small jet flying was sold in the hope cheaper flying would benefit some on the list with more money. Of course others on the list got furloughed.
My recollection the 76 seat outsourcing was "negotiated" along with the other sections of the PWA and that it was a package deal. What were the "credits?" I think your idea of why small jet flying was sold is a bit myopic. There were more than a few reasons.
This outsourced flying was sold again, with pay concessions for scope and a preferred hiring opportunity at Delta.
And there is nothing we can do about this. I've rented your apartment in New York and we have a contract. Our contract does not stop me from subletting. I decide to sublet. You have nothing to say about it.
In my view it is immoral for a union to sell one member's job to benefit another member. We can not have unity when we sell our members.
I guess I don't quite understand whose job is being sold. Are you talking about the already outsourced job from the DPWA or some other one? Who are we selling out? Sorry I'm so dense. All I can say is that it is not the unions job to hire. It is the unions job to try and get the Company to hire as many of its members as it can which means getting interviews for as many members as it can.
This has been covered thoroughly. You are looking in the wrong place and reaching an incorrect conclusion. Start with the Railway Labor Act and search Exclusive Agent.
When you can, please enlighten me.
I am on a phone and can not type, but this was covered extensively.
Sorry but I must have missed it. What was covered extensively?
DALPA originally agreed to 76 seat outsourcing in exchange for "credits." Northwest's ziplines actually put dollar figures on the value of outsourcing. Small jet flying was sold in the hope cheaper flying would benefit some on the list with more money. Of course others on the list got furloughed.
My recollection the 76 seat outsourcing was "negotiated" along with the other sections of the PWA and that it was a package deal. What were the "credits?" I think your idea of why small jet flying was sold is a bit myopic. There were more than a few reasons.
This outsourced flying was sold again, with pay concessions for scope and a preferred hiring opportunity at Delta.
And there is nothing we can do about this. I've rented your apartment in New York and we have a contract. Our contract does not stop me from subletting. I decide to sublet. You have nothing to say about it.
In my view it is immoral for a union to sell one member's job to benefit another member. We can not have unity when we sell our members.
I guess I don't quite understand whose job is being sold. Are you talking about the already outsourced job from the DPWA or some other one? Who are we selling out? Sorry I'm so dense. All I can say is that it is not the unions job to hire. It is the unions job to try and get the Company to hire as many of its members as it can which means getting interviews for as many members as it can.
The DPWA allows for a certain amount of outsourced flying. In essence that flying is gone until we can find some way to recover it. I think we got some of it back in the last contract. (Others may disagree) But until we negotiate to bring that flying back to mainline, it's gone. What Delta does with it is their prerogative as long as they remain within terms of the DPWA.
I'll as again. What and where can I find the specific language that was changed in the DPWA that is a result of the Delta Management/Pinnacle pilots agreement? This is what a lot of the arguments are based on. What in this agreement changed our PWA? The only things I see being discussed have to do with items allowed by our PWA already.
Denny
06-09-2013, 04:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement modifies the Delta contract by adding provisions which re order the written intent of the Delta contract by putting senior Pinnacle Captains first.
Do you mind reading this thread starting about December 27th of 2012? Do we really need to go though all of this again?
Do other readers want me to PM the materials, or put them here again for those who wont be bothered .... ?
Do you mind reading this thread starting about December 27th of 2012? Do we really need to go though all of this again?
Do other readers want me to PM the materials, or put them here again for those who wont be bothered .... ?
Ok, here is section 1. D. 11:
The Company will fill a minimum of 35% of the aggregate of all positions in Delta pilot new-hire classes in each trailing twelve-month period (to the extent airmen are available) with ALPA-represented airmen at Delta Connection Carriers, subject to such airmen meeting the Company’s competitive hiring standards, and subject to the Company’s objectives for diversity and experience among newly hired pilots. Airmen who flow up pursuant to LOA #9 and LOA #10 count toward satisfaction of such minimum percentage.
How is the written intent of this section being subverted by allowing Pinnacle captains to be interviewed first? This seems to me to be pretty all encompassing. Or are you talking about a different section?
All,
I'm sorry for the thread jack, I just want to understand....
Denny
06-09-2013, 04:25 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I don't think I am. DALPA is the exclusive agent that Delta has to bargain with with regards to the flying that is covered under our scope clause. Is that wrong? I'm still waiting to see the language of the contract that was changed due to the agreement between Management and the Pinnacle pilots.
The DPWA allows for a certain amount of outsourced flying. In essence that flying is gone until we can find some way to recover it. I think we got some of it back in the last contract. (Others may disagree) But until we negotiate to bring that flying back to mainline, it's gone. What Delta does with it is their prerogative as long as they remain within terms of the DPWA.
I'll as again. What and where can I find the specific language that was changed in the DPWA that is a result of the Delta Management/Pinnacle pilots agreement? This is what a lot of the arguments are based on. What in this agreement changed our PWA? The only things I see being discussed have to do with items allowed by our PWA already.
Denny
The DPWA allows for a certain amount of outsourced flying. In essence that flying is gone until we can find some way to recover it. I think we got some of it back in the last contract. (Others may disagree) But until we negotiate to bring that flying back to mainline, it's gone. What Delta does with it is their prerogative as long as they remain within terms of the DPWA.
I'll as again. What and where can I find the specific language that was changed in the DPWA that is a result of the Delta Management/Pinnacle pilots agreement? This is what a lot of the arguments are based on. What in this agreement changed our PWA? The only things I see being discussed have to do with items allowed by our PWA already.
Denny
The Pinnacle bridge agreement commits Delta flying to another pilot group beyond the amendable date of our contract (i.e. beyond the point where our scope can be modified). How do you not see how that is a really big freaking deal?
06-09-2013, 04:30 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
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.
Can you imagine how the company would react if DALPA did something similar to the company? I don't think it would be as lovey dovey.
06-09-2013, 04:39 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement modifies the Delta contract by adding provisions which re order the written intent of the Delta contract by putting senior Pinnacle Captains first.
Do you mind reading this thread starting about December 27th of 2012? Do we really need to go though all of this again?
Do other readers want me to PM the materials, or put them here again for those who wont be bothered .... ?
Do you mind reading this thread starting about December 27th of 2012? Do we really need to go though all of this again?
Do other readers want me to PM the materials, or put them here again for those who wont be bothered .... ?
I mean is this really your beef?
Some new hires will be from Pinnacle, some from other DCI carriers, some thru a flow through, some will be furloughed, some, will come from the military and some will come from carriers not at all associated with DCI.
06-09-2013, 04:50 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 7,000
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.
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.
LeineLodge,
We are within compliance simply because the 3 year window has not yet ended. While this is true, its like saying a football team that is down by 4 touchdowns with 1 minute left has not lost. True - but they will have "lost" in 1 more minute just as we will be out of compliance when the window is over.
I might also add, that when we are found to be out of compliance the period of being out of compliance will go back three years so we may in fact find out that while we are in compliance today, when we look back we may find out we were not in compliance today.
Look at it this way, if the company builds a time machine and sends Arnold Schwazenegger back in time to renegotiate with DALPA and............... never mind.
On the Pacific stuff I agree that there is potential and it may be a good move. I have been talking to my reps about it and am willing to let it play out for a couple of months.
My only heartburn is that if the company makes no effort whatsoever to comply in the Atlantic what makes us think that will comply with the next deal in the Pacific?
It appears the company negotiates a deal, does whatever it wants anyway, DALPA does not challenge the company but works out a deal. Lather, rinse, repeat. If DALPA keeps backing down and never challenges the company sooner or later, oif not already, DALPA will be taken for granted.
My 2 cents
Scoop
Last edited by johnso29; 06-09-2013 at 06:04 PM.
06-09-2013, 04:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
