Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-09-2012, 03:02 PM
  #98451  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Originally Posted by firstmob
. Does anyone really think this person is a pilot?
He is a pilot. Read his post history and you will understand where he is coming from.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:03 PM
  #98452  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TeddyKGB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
Default

Originally Posted by Roadkill
No, their responses didn't change my mind, and in fact I didn't get the impression they agreed that the reserve rules in the NNP were concessionary or would result in fewer pilots. However, I did give them another datapoint for their consideration on representing their constituency, and did tell them I'd absolutely vote "no" if a single 76 seater was increased, no matter what the pay increase was. But, at least they read my email and replied quickly, personally, at length, and not via a form reply. As far as feeling "represented" by my LEC, I actually felt pretty good with the responsiveness. Better than I do with my tenants...
But wait, according to Mesabah, section 1 isn't a contract item and we have no say in the matter in scope when it comes to our upcoming contract. If you don't believe me just ask Mesabah and he will explain how it works
TeddyKGB is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:05 PM
  #98453  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by Delta1067
LOL And he says we don't get it. Classic!
Before you discount what he is saying, you should look into it.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:18 PM
  #98454  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TeddyKGB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
Before you discount what he is saying, you should look into it.
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about.
TeddyKGB is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:24 PM
  #98455  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by Delta1067
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about.
Colgan was forced onto the Pinnacle pilots, a judge even ruled Colgan was in violation of Pinnacle pilots scope contract. The judge then went on to say there was nothing the Pinnacle pilots could do about it.

Edit: I'm not saying that is going to happen at Delta, but it's interesting to look at.

Last edited by Mesabah; 05-09-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:27 PM
  #98456  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah
A contract item as defined by the NMB, is pay, work rules, filing of vacancies etc. Scope is not one of them, it's simply who is to be covered by that agreement. You can't strike over 76 jet flying at DCI, once you give it up, it's gone. The only way to put it back is to get management to volunteer it back. How do you plan to do that? Voting NO repeatedly on a contract isn't going to do that.
Schematically correct, but if the company needed an agreement completed bad enough the may be willing to concede the point to get a passable agreement.

At that point it becomes about leverage.

As to DAL1067's last. The statement was once negotiated.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:28 PM
  #98457  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by Delta1067
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about.
You have to read what he is actually saying. He is saying basically once we allow something to be outsourced, we have agreed that it is gone...It is no longer our job, it is the other guys.

He is not saying anything else.

We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:41 PM
  #98458  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
This post really irritates me. You and many other RJ guys used to be regular posters calling us major pilots greedy bastards for selling scope to line our own pockets. Now you come here and post this? Seriously? So if we were all stupid enough to buy in to Mesabah's attempt to make us think we're in a no-win situation, we sell more scope...then you come back and screech at us for ruining your life...again?

Seems like every one of you RJ guys say: "I'm not a lifer" and "I don't want you guys to give up more scope". Yet when it comes to us fighting to do what you've expressly asked us to do, you post this kind of drivel that sounds like something directly from a management cubicle.

Un-freakin-real.

Carl
The regional guys are not the problem. We are the problem. There are plenty of regional pilots that are not lifers. We say we will not sell any more scope, but our union is in negotiations to allow more 76 seaters. We are going to be sold on it that we are actually improving our scope by our own union. Our pilots as a whole are too naive or selfish to see right through this. It will pass. This is not the regional pilots fault. We need to take the stand. Not them.
hockeypilot44 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:49 PM
  #98459  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Schematically correct, but if the company needed an agreement completed bad enough the may be willing to concede the point to get a passable agreement.

At that point it becomes about leverage.
That is still possibly a step in the wrong direction. A 100% NO vote, no matter how good the first TA is, is what's needed to start taking steps in the right direction.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:53 PM
  #98460  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1
You have to read what he is actually saying. He is saying basically once we allow something to be outsourced, we have agreed that it is gone...It is no longer our job, it is the other guys.

He is not saying anything else.

We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.
That's the way I read it too:

Definition of Major Dispute. Major disputes involve the creation or changing of collective bargaining agreements on rates of pay, work rules and working conditions, and are subject to conciliation procedures that are purposely long and drawn-out. Unlike other industries, collective bargaining agreements under the RLA do not expire on certain dates, but remain in full force and effect until changed in accordance with the procedures of the RLA.


RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:

- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").

- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.

- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.

- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.

- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.

- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.

Self-help. The RLA is silent on the scope of allowable self-help available to the parties after they have exhausted the major dispute resolution procedures. However, court decisions have made clear that the scope of permissible self-help is broad, extending considerably beyond the bounds of self-help that would be permitted to employers and unions covered by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Courts have ruled, for example, that an RLA union may strike and peacefully picket a carrier with which it has a primary dispute, engage in intermittent work stoppages ( e.g ., "selective" or "rolling strikes"), and secondarily picket other neutral RLA employers (a practice prohibited under the NLRA). For carriers, self-help includes: implementing their proposed contract changes; making a national response to defend against a selective strike that jeopardizes national bargaining, including locking out striking workers and, if the labor contract with non-striking workers permits, other workers; and replacing striking workers. The courts cannot enjoin such self-help activity.
forgot to bid is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices