tsquare

What grievance should be filed?

tsquare

That's a bit of a stretch in this case isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I think that there needs to be plenty of scrutiny on this, but until they substitute a baby bus for an RJ, what grounds do we have on a grievance?

iceman49

[QUOTE=satchip;983436]Everyone who is hollering for the end of ALPA and bring on the DPA, you might as well be forming a circular firing squad. Who is ALPA? It is US! WE VOTED EVERY SCOPE SALE. Not National, but us. You are projecting your anger away from yourselves to some nefarious national organization.

As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?QUOTE]

Sat, I don't know where you get your info..but no that's not went down.

Subsidiary plans are major sticking point between Northwest, unions
by Jeff Horwich, Minnesota Public Radio
January 9, 2006
Northwest's proposed "NewCo" small-jet subsidiary would fly 70- to 100-seat jets. The fleet could likely include planes like these Brazilian-made Embraer 175 and 190 aircraft. (Photo courtesy of Embraer)Northwest Airlines says its plan to bring the company out of bankruptcy hinges on creating more companies. To lower labor costs, Northwest wants to move thousands of employees, from pilots to bag handlers, into new subsidiaries. Unions say the idea takes cost-cutting too far, causing devastating damage to workers. This issue -- more than any other -- could take negotiations down to the wire and even prompt a strike.


St. Paul, Minn. — Northwest unions find little to like in the airline's plan to cut labor costs; they face lower wages, fewer vacation days, more costly health care, and frozen pension plans. But union leaders say the biggest threats to derail talks are two newly minted names: NewCo and GroundCo.
Both would be separate companies created -- and owned, at least to start with -- by Northwest. NewCo would fly jets with 70 to 100 seats. Northwest operates very few of these right now, but sees them as the most efficient way to serve many American cities. GroundCo would take over bag handling and customer service jobs at non-hub airports. Both subsidiaries would be staffed at least in part by former Northwest employees, working for lower wages than their colleagues at Northwest itself.
To supporters of the plan, NewCo and GroundCo comprise a bold move to transform Northwest from a financial relic into a reliable money-maker. Airline industry consultant Mike Boyd says the subsidiaries could make Northwest "obscenely competitive" -- and he means that in a good way.
"You want to be the best you can be, and I think the management at Northwest has decided, 'No more games, no more temporary stuff, no more halfway excuses -- we're going to fix it and fix it now,'" Boyd says. "If they do, everybody will benefit. Yes, you won't have as many people making $50,000 or $60,000 (a year) loading luggage. But guess what? That job today can't support those wages."

"A slap in the face"

Northwest declined an interview on its subsidiary plans.
Unions for pilots, flight attendants, and groundworkers say NewCo and GroundCo are overkill. In filings with Northwest's bankruptcy court, the unions say Northwest's proposal goes well beyond what the company needs to become competitive.
A filing by groundworkers calls GroundCo an attempt not just to cut costs, but to "destroy" the union at Northwest. The union says GroundCo, along with outsourcing, will eliminate almost half its members' jobs at the airline.
The pilots' union says NewCo could eliminate 20 percent of current pilots' jobs, as Northwest moves from its older DC9s to the sleek new jets flown by the low-cost subsidiary. Northwest Air Line Pilots Association chairman Mark McClain says its too much to take for pilots, who have already cut their salaries by more than a third.
"It is a slap in the face when you've been responsive and responsible," McClain says. "We have led the way in concessions, but that doesn't mean we're an easy target. We'll do what's necessary, but we don't plan on doing any more than that. Northwest management seems to think that they do need more, and we're not willing to go there."
To sweeten the deal, Northwest says laid-off Northwest pilots can have first dibs on NewCo jobs. They could still be represented by the union, though their contract would be entirely separate from mainline Northwest pilots.
In 2002 then-bankrupt US Airways made a similar "jets-for-jobs" deal, giving furloughed pilots jobs on the newly-created MidAtlantic Airways. MidAtlantic has since been dissolved, and its assets sold to an unrelated airline company. Northwest pilots say the future of NewCo would be similarly uncertain.
The union has an alternative it calls "N Star." N Star would be a division within Northwest, not a separate company. It would fly those smaller jets, and its pilots would make less. But they could also rise through the ranks to fly bigger planes for more money, and all pilots would share the same contract. The flight attendants union is also backing the N Star idea, saying there is no indication its members would have any preference at NewCo.
If the unions lose on NewCo and GroundCo, it would be a major moment for the industry, according to Dawna Rhoades, an expert in airline strategy at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Rhoades says what is remarkable about Northwest's subsidiary proposals is not that no one has ever thought of them. It is that no carrier has ever really been in a position to push through such a major overhaul.
"Almost all of these ideas have been floated before, have been suggested by airlines," Rhoades says. "Unions have tended to resist essentially all of them, and in other times have been relatively successful at doing that."
All three unions have warned NewCo and GroundCo could cut so deeply as to be worth striking over -- a situation that might mortally cripple the airline. Negotiations in the coming weeks could decide whether Northwest emerges from bankruptcy with the two new companies it wants -- or no company at all.

tsquare

Oil over $112... and the hits just keep coming..

DAL 88 Driver

I want management to say, "pilot costs back to 2004 levels... and the hits just keep coming..."

forgot to bid

If RAH is a single transportation system then we are contracting one airline that flies everything from 37 seaters to 162 seat Airbuses to fly for us and the multi-certificate charade is over.

As a Delta Connection carrier you can acquire and fly aircraft that exceed the limits of what is allowed for DCI as long as that airplane is certified to seat less than 106 and configured for less than 97 and if it seats between 71 and 97 seats you can't fly it on a Delta route. In fact, if RAH had stuck to 97-seat E175s and flew them as Midwest Airlines it'd been fine by the contract as long as they never touched our routes. But if RAH/Frontier is STS, then we are in essence contracting Frontier to fly as Delta Connection and you can check off every no no listed in Section 1D.

To me this is tantamount to having Jetblue acquire E175s and then having Jetblue pilots fly Delta painted E175s for DCI with all of the income from the guaranteed profit on that operation funneled right back into the coffers of Jetblue, an airline we compete with.

If that status quo continues and DALPA doesn't fight this then all JB needs to do is create another Part 121 certificate and they to would qualify for Delta Connection.

As of right now, there is nothing we can grieve thus we have to go back to the NMB for RAH to be declared STS. IMO, the NMB sure is baiting us to ask that question again. The IBT is who brought this suit and they're not stupid, if they had asked for the NMB to find RAH an STS then they're out of Delta, UsAir and American and they cannot afford that at all.

To me the NMB gave all of these precedents of airlines they found to be STS that were far less integrated than RAH to the point I think they were being funny. Hence, the T-ball analogy and hence the angst.

Or better yet, Bull Durham. Kevin Costner's Crash character is the NMB and that wussy Tim Robbin's Nuke character is RAH. Crash is telling you what Nuke is about to throw. All you have to do is hit it... and while I hope DALPA will be defining Air Carrier in such a way to preclude future "Holdings" airlines, there are a lot wiser people who've dealt with ALPA a lot longer that stoke my fear that it ain't happening. They ain't going to swing.

scambo1

What Gus is sayin is that...no, this is absolutely not a bit of a stretch. What Gus is sayin is that this is the end game.

shiznit

DAL has a longstanding relationship with American Eagle feeding small communities to DL flights out of LAX. AMR uses aircraft from 34 seat SAAB's to 300 seat 777's on multiple certificates. I am extremely unhappy with the wording of Section 1, but its going to be darn near impossible to convince the System Board of Adjustment that somehow RAH violates the clause but AMR does not.

Just one more thing for my C2012 punchlist that will have to be fixed before I vote to approve a new PWA.

newKnow

When we made the contract, did we (DALPA) intend to allow Delta to outsource our flying to another company that flew A-320's?

If so, no grievance.

If not, grievance.

So far, no grievance. Enough (not) said.

80ktsClamp

Then file a grievance against them as well.