johnso29

IDK. I suppose under some circumstances that may be the case. But like I said, AF/KLM has been losing tons of money. And those losses are shared by DAL. DAL can't force AF/KLM to stop flying. They can only manage DAL.

As we all should be. DALPA needs to know we line pilots are paying attention, and that we expect results.

I agree, & I expect that we will see it resolved.

GunshipGuy

Doesn't negate the fact that our side agreed to a PWA that allows the company to get away with non-compliance for too long because technically they're not in non-compliance until the period ends (even though calculations show they won't be in compliance). The fact that our MEC is already addressing this (and is at the disadvantage of having a scope section on the issue without some teeth in it) is admittance to how the portion of the PWA was inadequately written.

Do you think the company was surprised about these issues AFTER they signed? No, they knew these were areas where they'd prefer to have gotten more of what they wanted, but didn't. Now that is what occurs on both sides. What we're discussing is how our union has been caught flat footed for failing to realize what the company realized it could get away with because there weren't immediate penalties written into the PWA for non-compliance; moreover, we have to wait more than three years for it to technically be a non-compliance. The fact that the MEC is voicing their displeasure now is evidence of how the NC failed to think ahead to put in language to better ensure compliance (not after 3 years) and with specific costs for not doing so.

That's what we thought the last time around, isn't it? Yet, we were told we got all we could. Then, voila, a billion is there for dividends. I'm not saying the company exits to give the pilot group all that, but I don't want to hear from some how there wasn't anything more we could have gotten. Changeover of 50% of the MEC or not, I don't have much confidence things will be different next time around until I hear some mea culpas on how C2012 was more concessionary than it had to be.

badflaps

Hah! Fifi's not so great, five hour maint. delay CVG/TPA right now, I think a fizzle nut fell off the frog grater....

johnso29

Being in CVG doesn't help. It seems like they aren't really stocking parts anywhere right now. I was in ATL a few weeks ago, & they didn't have a Stand by power switch for a B757! Delta's love child fleet! And we were in ATL! I couldn't believe it.

acl65pilot

When AZ was brought it our goal was to stay at 50% of the EASK's. We would have been well below it if we would have just added AZ EASK's to the total mix and then take our look-back percentage. Prior to the addition of AZ our negotiated portion was over 51%. It would have been near 47% without negotiations.

What we got with AZ being added and the start of a new three year measurement period was 50-50 on the EASK's. At the time the industry was moderately growing, DAL was still eying to be A 50-50 International airline etc. We also forget that we were the first with these types of JV's and most have literally copied our language.

Yes three years is too long, yes it should be shorter, yes, DAL would be in violation of the PWA is the end of the cure period was today, and yes the MEC is watching it. Like it or hate it a MEC about two and a half years ago agreed to this. Remember that we were just starting to have profitable years back then? Remember the environment we were in? Those that drafted this language go what they could. I asked, and asked and asked. Honestly I believe em. I also believe the Reps when they say that they are watching this very closely because it means WB jobs and seat progression to all. After all it was negotiated in good faith, but it was negotiated.

I disagree. Flat footed no, it has been trending this way for a year and a half. Remember back in Bush's last six months in office how the world was caught off guard about the enormity of the financial mess? Remember how Europe fell next? Remember how Asia was doing well and they moved WB flying over there? We have to realize where we were at the time, and to say that the this was all known prior to agreeing to this language is in my opinion incorrect.

We don't have to like what we agreed to, we can accuse DALPA of being duped, or we can see where the language has not met our goals and if there is non-compliance in March of 2015 we remedy it. If there is an opportunity prior to that I am sure the MEC will look at it.

I was vocal about the TA, but honestly, its over a year in the rearview mirror. The MEC is different, more vocal, and seeking the changes and gains the pilots want. The company is doing very well, and if anything it just raises my expectations farther. I do not think that those that voted for the TA liked the work rule changes, but many weighed it for what it was and voted for it. We can be irritated with that fact, or we can reengage and make sure that the next time we are in that level of negotiations it adds more than a billion dollars over three years. I know what I want done.

I am sure that the next round of "all in" negotiations will prove the the viability of proactive engagement.

GunshipGuy

You're correct in that section 14 F.3 has parameters before verification is required, but that's not the whole story. You should realize 14 F.4 (below) is separate from F.3 and does not require a pilot to reach those numbers before the CP makes his inquiry.I don't see any parameters there, and to me it seems the CP is well within his right to call and inquire as to why a pilot called in sick. And then if the CP wanted the pilot to back it up with a doctors visit he could.

My background and experience was you flew unless you were sick. If you were sick then you went to see a doctor and he documented the event. I'm not bemoaning the language, but I do read it as giving the CP a lot of latitude to verify sick usage. The language in the old PWA pretty much gave them the same right.

GunshipGuy

ACL, good points and added info. I'm hoping next time will be better as well. I think a good start would be a survey that doesn't include any "what would you be willing to give up for..." I can't recall if that was specifically in the survey, but I was left with a sense that was the tone in some parts.

PilotFrog

johnso29

I'm familiar with the entire policy, & I understand your point. So if the old agreement gave the CP the same rights, wouldn't you consider 100 hours of unverified time per year a gain?

My point has been that the new sick policy is better then the old one.

80ktsClamp

Just give it a glass of wine and some cheese, wait until she is le ready.