ATL7ER

You're correct that the OP was talking about Swap with the Pot and I got focused on personal drops. My bad. But, swap with the pot is not affected by APD holidays either. The formula in 23.v.5 is what produces the reserves required shown in DBMS. If the available is greater than the required that's all the system looks at. PWA 23.H says nothing about a swap with the pot being able to be denied if the trip to be dropped operates on an APD holiday. Only a carryout trip, i.e. asterisk rotation, can be affected if the carryout portion hits an APD holiday. Again, my bigger point is that the only thing an APD holiday can cause to not be granted is an APD. As long as reserves available is greater than reserves required they can't deny a PD or SWP simply due to an APD holiday period.

Jughead135

This part is incorrect.


23.V.5. splits into two parts, "non-holiday" (sub-para a.) and "holiday" (sub-para b.) application. Several places refer to the 23.I.10.a.Exception list of "holidays." While they may not be able to auto-deny it like with an APD, it certainly can cause a denial. (In short, swapping out of trips affected by the APD holidays have to compare day-by-day, instead of the overall amount of "negative" coverage.)



For the OP, this is moot. He's posted that PCS took his request, so: winning!

notEnuf

With the tweaks suggested, this is what I have.

Knowing that the verbiage may be altered as the resolution makes its way through the process, I am providing it to copy or model for anyone wanting to present at their own LECs. My purpose is to convey intent from the membership to address this and not have my own stamp in the policy manual. Do as you like with the document. I feel strongly about the spending and alcohol and can only do my part to help address it. I hope enough people care to show the MEC that this is more than a passing gripe, and that we need to get our house in order to proceed in a professional manner in the upcoming negotiations.



Council __ resolution

Subject: Resolution to limit hospitality suite spending and end alcohol service by DALPA

Whereas, DALPA has a fiduciary responsibility to the membership which has been in the opinion of the not been upheld.

Whereas, more transparency and better stewardship of DALPA funds provided by the membership in the form of dues is needed, evidenced by hospitality suites costs DALPA has incurred during the 2018 ALPA board of directors meeting. (in excess of $170,000)

Whereas, alcohol is suspected to have lead to behavior that is embarrassing to the organization and detrimental to the reputation of DALPA and its pilot members.

Whereas, the damage to reputation of DALPA will impair its ability to negotiate improvements to the pilot working agreement and could limit earnings or preclude enhancements to the working conditions.

Whereas, DALPA may be held liable for damages or injuries as the result of providing alcohol to persons involved in DUI, assault or other harmful actions.

Whereas, the purpose of DALPA meetings is to conduct the business of the Association, not to provide entertainment and leisure to the MEC and the administration.

Whereas, Unimpaired thinking and professional behavior is expected of pilot representatives when conducting the business of the pilot group.


Therefore be it resolved, the standards of alcohol consumption while doing DALPA business be reasonable and prudent.

And be it further resolved, that DALPA will not purchase or reimburse the purchase of alcohol or other intoxicants.

And be it further resolved, that hospitality suites be limited to providing food and non-alcoholic beverages and permit for at most a predetermined 4 hour period when individual members may consume individually purchased alcoholic beverages.

And be it further resolved, an annual accounting of hospitality suite expenses including all items and services purchased for the purpose of furnishing said suites be published to the membership. And that any exceedance of authorized funds be accounted for and approved by the MEC as a body and not by a single officer.

And be it further resolved, if these resolutions require changes to any governing policy be it known that this resolution is intent of this council to make these changes.

ATL7ER

Yeah, we may as well try to get phases of the moon and planetary alignment indexes added to PWA 23 in the next contract. Wouldn't complicate it anymore than as currently written. Meanwhile, gaping holes exist in other language that allows the company to interpret whatever they want. Often aided by non-codified "gentlemen's agreements" with DALPA that fall under "that's how we've always done it". Missing a GS and getting single pay while the PWA says "made whole" comes to mind.

The icing on the cake with scheduling stuff, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is that the average scheduler knows less about how this stuff works than my high school kid. I've been told some amazingly/exceedingly wrong info by schedulers and even scheduling supervisors...often with an attitude about it to boot.

OK, rant over. As you said, at least the OP got his SWP....despite the expert info from the scheduler he talked to. This stuff should be way, WAY simpler.

m3113n1a1

Is there a Delta gym in DTW similar to ATL?

BeamMeUp

Yes, under A68. Weekdays 7-9:30, weekends 9-7, showers and lockers, no toiletries. Search Detroit gym on Deltanet for more specifics as I have none and haven’t ever been. Maybe someone else can chime in that has.

RonRicco

Exactly. This allegeded attacker was also the spokesperson for the “elevator caucus” among other things. Nothing apparently has changed in that group since then, so I would be very reluctant to drop chargers after a surgery, being out of work etc hoping that somehow those who have shown consistent erratic behavior were somehow now going to change.

3 green

Unfortunately, the guys that should be involved in ALPA don't want to do it so you get a lot of less qualified people doing ALPA work(not always). We saw this firsthand on TA 1 last go around.

cornbeef007

Starting to sound like this wasn’t as one sided as you initially implied. Just as children are disciplined in our schools, both sides need to be held accountable.

NERD

Do tell! My guess is that years of anger/frustration/dislike, etc finally came to boil. Little guy(who's displayed anger multiple times on CC and other SM sights) runs over to intervene(butt in) in a heated discussion between the larger alleged aggressor and a new rep and gets into personal space of said alleged aggressor. Both most likely imbibing and not exactly thinking their most clear. Big guy pushes little guy(who's possibly a little off balance anyway due to alleged imbibing) stumbles, falls and gets hurt. This is just a theory of possible events.