Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-07-2011, 11:44 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
07-07-2011, 11:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: west coast wannabe
Posts: 815
Just flew with a mid-seniority guy and we started about our upcoming contract. He stated that DALPA negotiated C2K and even though the company couldn't afford it, Leo signed it anyway, and basically bankrupt the company overnight. I wasn't at DL in 2000, so if anyone would chime in, i'd appreciate. But it seems to me there's more than a few of those that think that way. If that's the case, we're in big trouble.
07-07-2011, 11:52 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
SWA-DAL DC9 Min Reserve Guarantee Parity
So SWA gets 78 hour min guarantee and we have 70. We want W2 parity. Okay, take their posted hourly rates and multiply by 78, that's their monthly min, now divide it out by 70 which is ours.
For reference:
BTW, I got these numbers from Shiznit's post way back when. Can someone tell me if its 2000 or 2004 numbers?
And DAL 88, I'm getting closer to your numbers now aren't I? (green smilie guy)
For reference:
BTW, I got these numbers from Shiznit's post way back when. Can someone tell me if its 2000 or 2004 numbers?
And DAL 88, I'm getting closer to your numbers now aren't I? (green smilie guy)
Last edited by forgot to bid; 07-07-2011 at 01:34 PM.
07-07-2011, 12:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,511
I'm not so sure, Carl. History says otherwise.
ALPA keeps giving away scope and selling it with enhanced furlough protection.
Remember Moak's grievance settlement that allowed the extra 76 seat jets?
That was a straight up deal to give the company another 26 large RJs in exchange for more no furlough language. It was just 2 years ago.
Here's the settlement, lest we forget:
• The Company will agree to the Association’s interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e. but (ALPA) provides a one-time exception to this interpretation allowing the Company to operate up to 153* 76-seat jets so long as the Company does not furlough any pilot on the integrated system seniority list as of February 9, 2009, the date the agreement was signed.
...
• If the Company does furlough any pilot on the Integrated System Seniority List, then the Company will physically remove six passenger seats from the number of 76-seat jets (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares) that exceeds the authorized number of 76-seat jets under the Association’s interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e.
The company knew there wasn't going to be any furloughs. So what's the bottom line? They got their 26 extra DCI jets and what did we get? Another no furlough clause.
ALPA keeps giving away scope and selling it with enhanced furlough protection.
Remember Moak's grievance settlement that allowed the extra 76 seat jets?
That was a straight up deal to give the company another 26 large RJs in exchange for more no furlough language. It was just 2 years ago.
Here's the settlement, lest we forget:
• The Company will agree to the Association’s interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e. but (ALPA) provides a one-time exception to this interpretation allowing the Company to operate up to 153* 76-seat jets so long as the Company does not furlough any pilot on the integrated system seniority list as of February 9, 2009, the date the agreement was signed.
...
• If the Company does furlough any pilot on the Integrated System Seniority List, then the Company will physically remove six passenger seats from the number of 76-seat jets (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares) that exceeds the authorized number of 76-seat jets under the Association’s interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e.
The company knew there wasn't going to be any furloughs. So what's the bottom line? They got their 26 extra DCI jets and what did we get? Another no furlough clause.
First we were not sure we could win in arbitration. Felt it was 50/50 at best.
Second the companies fleet plan would have allowed those jets before we could have ever reached a arbitration award. Even if we had won the jets would then have been permitted under the fleet plan since they were taking delivery of additional mainline jets.
If we went to arbitration even with a slam dunk win there was little to be gained for the pilot group. We probably would have been awarded some financial compensation.
Had we lost in the arbitration then there would have been a lot of damage and going forward we would have been subject to the company's opinion on that section. That would mean more 76 seat RJ's allowed for the duration of the contract if not longer.
I have spoken to many pilots who opposed that agreement. Those that took the time to actually read what was going on and understand it to a man agreed that Dalpa handled it well. The one comment from a real Dalpa hater summed it up. I don't like the agreement but I understand it and it was the smart thing to do.
07-07-2011, 12:03 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Any updates on this:
I'm hearing we're giving in. I hope that's not true.
Item 3. April 19, 2011 Special MEC Meeting Summary: The MEC met for a Special MEC Meeting on Tuesday April 19th in order to discuss a number of subjects of interest to C44 pilots.
• A recent National Mediation Board decision classifying Republic Air Holdings as a Single Transportation System, for the purposes of representation, does not in and of itself affect scope compliance; however questions have arisen regarding the meaning of air carrier as it relates to US code and our PWA. At the direction of the MEC, in order to ensure scope compliance, ALPA legal counsel and the MEC will review the various issues involved related to the legal definition of an “air carrier” at the regular scheduled MEC meeting in May. Scope is a fundamental cornerstone of our contract and this issue will be reviewed exhaustively.
• A recent National Mediation Board decision classifying Republic Air Holdings as a Single Transportation System, for the purposes of representation, does not in and of itself affect scope compliance; however questions have arisen regarding the meaning of air carrier as it relates to US code and our PWA. At the direction of the MEC, in order to ensure scope compliance, ALPA legal counsel and the MEC will review the various issues involved related to the legal definition of an “air carrier” at the regular scheduled MEC meeting in May. Scope is a fundamental cornerstone of our contract and this issue will be reviewed exhaustively.
07-07-2011, 12:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Mad Doggy
Posts: 250
Conversion / training for the last AE is out.
07-07-2011, 12:34 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Just flew with a mid-seniority guy and we started about our upcoming contract. He stated that DALPA negotiated C2K and even though the company couldn't afford it, Leo signed it anyway, and basically bankrupt the company overnight. I wasn't at DL in 2000, so if anyone would chime in, i'd appreciate. But it seems to me there's more than a few of those that think that way. If that's the case, we're in big trouble.
Of course, then both companies declared BK on the same day, so take that for what it's worth.
It was a sentiment at the time whether or not it had any factual basing.
07-07-2011, 12:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
If a carrier that performs category A or category C operations acquires an aircraft that would cause the Company to no longer be in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 D. 2. c. [A320 at Frontier is 162 seats] , the Company will terminate such operations on the date that is the later of the date such aircraft is placed in revenue service, or nine months from the date that the Company first became aware of the potential acquisition.
"Domestic air carrier” means an air carrier as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(2)
TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE VII > PART A > subpart i > CHAPTER 401 > § 40102
§ 40102. Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this part—
(1) “aeronautics” means the science and art of flight.
(2) “air carrier” means a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
§ 40102. Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this part—
(1) “aeronautics” means the science and art of flight.
(2) “air carrier” means a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
"undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation."
That's pretty broad, certainly well beyond certificate holder...
Gotta be a pretty bad lawyer to not be able to argue that...
Cheers
George
07-07-2011, 01:01 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
07-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Weekend and Holiday Pilot
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Sippin' at the Troubadour
Posts: 1,142
You mean the smoky dive biker bar by Kroger's?
Should I bring my guitar? What time you guys getting started? More importantly, should we bring ear plugs?
Of course if it is an MD88 tribute band, it needs to play Bowie or Manfred Mann. Stuff that makes no sense and has confused orientation.
Should I bring my guitar? What time you guys getting started? More importantly, should we bring ear plugs?
Of course if it is an MD88 tribute band, it needs to play Bowie or Manfred Mann. Stuff that makes no sense and has confused orientation.
"And go-cart Mozart was checkin' out the weather chart to see if it was safe outside
And little Early-Pearly came by in his curly-wurly and asked me if I needed a ride"
And little Early-Pearly came by in his curly-wurly and asked me if I needed a ride"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
