Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-15-2014, 04:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
05-15-2014, 04:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 364
05-15-2014, 04:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: M88 B
Posts: 399
05-15-2014, 04:17 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
That's all I can say. Limited details may be released by DALPA tonight, but they just got the language.
It's certainly a major win, and I think we'll be quite pleased when we get the full details.
Edit: email is out.
It's certainly a major win, and I think we'll be quite pleased when we get the full details.
Edit: email is out.
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 05-15-2014 at 04:31 PM.
05-15-2014, 04:20 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
kidding of course.
05-15-2014, 04:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
The court Delta would file in would be the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia. They wouldn't "kick that issue to another court," whatever that means. That's not how the system works. If either side disagrees (which would be inevitable) with the ruling either party is free to appeal to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
An injunction is not as easy to get as you and sailing seem to think. It's not something that would happen overnight either. There are factors that the court must consider.
Here's some caselaw for you, straight out of the DAL v. ALPA case in 2000:
"A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not thwart public interest." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991)
As another poster already pointed out, DAL could still cover the schedule using short calls and greenslips. The schedule would get flown, it would just be more expensive for them. Hard to argue that injury would be "irreparable" or that such "injury" would outweigh the harm to the pilots of having our PWA rights trashed by memo.
Again, all of this is moot as your union refuses to stand and fight. And, as I've said before, if DAL were successful at getting an injunction, SO WHAT! Neither DALPA nor the 49ers were fined because they did nothing illegal. Completely different from the AA sickout, which was clearly illegal--hence the fine.
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
An injunction is not as easy to get as you and sailing seem to think. It's not something that would happen overnight either. There are factors that the court must consider.
Here's some caselaw for you, straight out of the DAL v. ALPA case in 2000:
"A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not thwart public interest." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991)
As another poster already pointed out, DAL could still cover the schedule using short calls and greenslips. The schedule would get flown, it would just be more expensive for them. Hard to argue that injury would be "irreparable" or that such "injury" would outweigh the harm to the pilots of having our PWA rights trashed by memo.
Again, all of this is moot as your union refuses to stand and fight. And, as I've said before, if DAL were successful at getting an injunction, SO WHAT! Neither DALPA nor the 49ers were fined because they did nothing illegal. Completely different from the AA sickout, which was clearly illegal--hence the fine.
05-15-2014, 04:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
05-15-2014, 04:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
From ALPA:
Part 117 & Scheduling: FAA Releases More Interpretations
The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
Part 117 & Scheduling: FAA Releases More Interpretations
The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
05-15-2014, 04:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
05-15-2014, 05:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,596
Kind of hard to file a grievance on 1 May when the company has all ready agreed to pay the pilots effected and you have a agreement in principle and are working on final language.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
