Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Why he does this, I cannot understand.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

Probably has something to do with the definition of "is."

Originally Posted by sailingfun

If you look at the shortfall over the entire time period it's about 2.5 flights a day. A average flight to Europe takes about 1500 block hours a month. Call it around 4000 block hours total. 100 jobs sounds about right.

Originally Posted by johnso29

Bar didn't say DALPA would negotiate it away. He said the company would try to.

Originally Posted by johnso29

Bottom line here, you can't file a grievance for a violation that hasn't occurred. That was the point.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Carl;

You are correct, I used the wrong word. There is no violation but there is non-compliance of the first proviso which triggered the second proviso or the cure period. There is NOT non-compliance to the point of a violation which was my point last night.

I took non-compliance in your post to mean violation and I clearly misunderstood your intent. The blame is on me not you.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Here is what I wrote:

Lets try this again Carl. Contractual compliance or non-compliance goes farther than just compliance with the EASK balance listed in the PWA. As you have dutifully copied here, in the PWA, there is a measurement period of three years, that is date defined. Compliance or -non-compliance of the metric that was agreed to, determines not a PWA violation but if the secondary provision of a cure period is triggered.

As you and I are totally aware of, the "company" is below the compliance band, (do not have the exactly number) as it was measured at the end of March 2014, and as a result the cure period as mutually agreed to many moons ago is triggered. Non-compliance of the EASK balance at the end of the measurement period does not equate to a contractual violation.

As you read there is directive language in the fact that the company "will" return to compliance in the one year cure. If that does not happen, and at the end of this period, and only then is there a violation of the PWA by the "company."

I know you know this, but you cherry pick what suits your purpose. Any contract that has a remedy clause in it, with a date specific period, results if the party that has the damages having to wait to file claim until that remedy period is over. It is the same on any contact, labor agreements or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Tsquare is exactly right.

When will this madness end!!



Carl

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

They have, tangentially if you read committee reports from the MEC meetings.

It would be hard to write that Comm without concensus on where we go from here.

It would be good to again remind the pilots that the Transatlantic JV negotiation resulted in a gain for Delta pilots. Management just has not delivered and by some estimates underperformed even our status quo.

Originally Posted by index

DALPA doesn't file grievances even for violations that HAVE occurred. Case in point, SD memo.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

This is factually incorrect. The first course of action is to get the company to just fix it, if that does not happen, we engage them to see it our way, and if they do not a grievance is filed. It cuts down on the number of grievances but it does not cut down on the number of resolved issues.

Some have been taking longer than they should there is no argument there, but they ultimately are resolved in the pilot's favor.

Originally Posted by georgetg

That's exactly where the remedy has to come from...

We are 1.7% below the established 1.5% "wiggle room"
That's the language in 1.P.4 that gave the company a target of 50% but a 1.5% margin of error to give the company flexibility, you know: just in case something unexpected comes up.

Instead of a financial penalty I'd rather see us bet on Delta's good faith effort to deliver what was promised in the first place.

Double or Nothing

I would gladly let the company off the hook if by March 30, 2016 the company brought us 1.7% above the upper band on a 3-year loock-back (that's a 53.2% share)
The penalty for not reaching that goal would be double the lost total compensation from not providing the flying over the past 5 years.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by buzzpat

Hey Carl,

Not to start anything, but....who's the cat and who's the dog? I hate cats.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

No acl, you are factually incorrect and index was factually correct. When Dickson sent out that memo, then began to enforce it while taking hostages, that was a contract violation plain and simple. DALPA did NOT file a grievance. DALPA chose negotiations. The rest of your post is non-responsive and deflects from the point.

Carl