Details on Delta TA
#5411
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
You need to go further than that, you also need to read the case law, labor law, and associated court decisions. Simply reading the contract is not enough, you have to understand the history, and your rights under the law. ALPA's statements on scope have been misleading.
#5412
The company is paying us an amount equal to 5% of its most recent buyback to settle its willful disregard of our scope. And it has also established the precedence of doing so. For blowing off our most sacred contractual element.
It's a bargain at twice the price. For them.
It's a bargain at twice the price. For them.
#5413
Carl & PD -- OK, yeah, it sucks that they can violate scope at will and just pay us some cash, but I want to know what we could do differently. Any violation of the contract will always go through the grievance and arbitration process. We filed the grievance, we kept it out of the Section 6 process, both good. The subsequent alternatives are settling or going to the arbitrator. We settled for $30M. Would an arbitrator have awarded more? *Maybe,* but then we're still selling scope for money (and the arbitrator might have said $15M while simultaneously giving Sir Richard a handy under the table). What I can't see the arbitrator doing is forcing Delta to up their int'l block hours and creating more widebody vacancies. That's the solution we'd like to see but simply not going to happen. So it was always going to come down to money.
The idea that an arbitrator will only allow money settlements is simply not true. The cancellation of the JV or the forced increase of EASK's by Delta was absolutely a possible remedy...but we'd have to plea for that remedy during the arbitration. We didn't even go to arbitration. We settled for money only for a clear black and white violation. Why? Because DALPA never believed in the grievance in the first place.
If you really want to see a proper grievance, let the company ignore agency shop (requirement to pay ALPA Union dues) for Delta pilots. I GUARANTEE that DALPA would not accept a monetary penalty for that...DALPA would demand the company pay strict attention to the language.
Carl
#5414
A couple observations from someone new to the fight:
1) I believe several posters stated unequivocally that this matter would be swept under the table as a concession in Sec 6 negotiations. That did not happen. This should tell us about the many conflicting rumors from trusted sources.
2) Lots of chatter as to whether this is an adequate penalty for the severity of offense. No numbers to back up either side of the argument.
What I would like to see is the following numbers, from the company, DALPA, DPA, and any others:
A) Estimated financial gain made by company through contract violation.
B) Estimated financial loss to pilot force due to contract violation, to include opportunity costs (lost upgrades, green-slips due to understaffing, ALV to reserves, etc)
As far as doling out the moolah, again I have less than a whole dog in said fight. However I will postulate that precious few will be happy about how this is paid out, except the handful of us 2010 CJO recipients who have been told we're splitting $10M in recompense for not getting on property till 2014 due to the hiring freeze.
1) I believe several posters stated unequivocally that this matter would be swept under the table as a concession in Sec 6 negotiations. That did not happen. This should tell us about the many conflicting rumors from trusted sources.
2) Lots of chatter as to whether this is an adequate penalty for the severity of offense. No numbers to back up either side of the argument.
What I would like to see is the following numbers, from the company, DALPA, DPA, and any others:
A) Estimated financial gain made by company through contract violation.
B) Estimated financial loss to pilot force due to contract violation, to include opportunity costs (lost upgrades, green-slips due to understaffing, ALV to reserves, etc)
As far as doling out the moolah, again I have less than a whole dog in said fight. However I will postulate that precious few will be happy about how this is paid out, except the handful of us 2010 CJO recipients who have been told we're splitting $10M in recompense for not getting on property till 2014 due to the hiring freeze.
#5415
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
If you really want to see a proper grievance, let the company ignore agency shop (requirement to pay ALPA Union dues) for Delta pilots. I GUARANTEE that DALPA would not accept a monetary penalty for that...DALPA would demand the company pay strict attention to the language.
Carl[/QUOTE]
Carl
This is an outstanding point.
Just like we can plan on our concessions enforced day one and our gains as management's time allows.
Jerry
Carl[/QUOTE]
Carl
This is an outstanding point.
Just like we can plan on our concessions enforced day one and our gains as management's time allows.
Jerry
#5416
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
It will certainly never happen with your belief that's for damn sure. What I'd like to know is how could a new guy like you come to Delta with this belief? Where did you learn that level of resignation?
The idea that an arbitrator will only allow money settlements is simply not true. The cancellation of the JV or the forced increase of EASK's by Delta was absolutely a possible remedy...but we'd have to plea for that remedy during the arbitration. We didn't even go to arbitration. We settled for money only for a clear black and white violation. Why? Because DALPA never believed in the grievance in the first place.
If you really want to see a proper grievance, let the company ignore agency shop (requirement to pay ALPA Union dues) for Delta pilots. I GUARANTEE that DALPA would not accept a monetary penalty for that...DALPA would demand the company pay strict attention to the language.
Carl
The idea that an arbitrator will only allow money settlements is simply not true. The cancellation of the JV or the forced increase of EASK's by Delta was absolutely a possible remedy...but we'd have to plea for that remedy during the arbitration. We didn't even go to arbitration. We settled for money only for a clear black and white violation. Why? Because DALPA never believed in the grievance in the first place.
If you really want to see a proper grievance, let the company ignore agency shop (requirement to pay ALPA Union dues) for Delta pilots. I GUARANTEE that DALPA would not accept a monetary penalty for that...DALPA would demand the company pay strict attention to the language.
Carl
#5417
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
A couple observations from someone new to the fight:
1) I believe several posters stated unequivocally that this matter would be swept under the table as a concession in Sec 6 negotiations. That did not happen. This should tell us about the many conflicting rumors from trusted sources.
.
1) I believe several posters stated unequivocally that this matter would be swept under the table as a concession in Sec 6 negotiations. That did not happen. This should tell us about the many conflicting rumors from trusted sources.
.
Just like all the talk about PS converting to wages. They could get XX + PS or XY with reduced PS, but I am sure the outlay would be the same amount of money….
#5418
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
A couple observations from someone new to the fight:
1) I believe several posters stated unequivocally that this matter would be swept under the table as a concession in Sec 6 negotiations. That did not happen. This should tell us about the many conflicting rumors from trusted sources.
2) Lots of chatter as to whether this is an adequate penalty for the severity of offense. No numbers to back up either side of the argument.
What I would like to see is the following numbers, from the company, DALPA, DPA, and any others:
A) Estimated financial gain made by company through contract violation.
B) Estimated financial loss to pilot force due to contract violation, to include opportunity costs (lost upgrades, green-slips due to understaffing, ALV to reserves, etc)
As far as doling out the moolah, again I have less than a whole dog in said fight. However I will postulate that precious few will be happy about how this is paid out, except the handful of us 2010 CJO recipients who have been told we're splitting $10M in recompense for not getting on property till 2014 due to the hiring freeze.
1) I believe several posters stated unequivocally that this matter would be swept under the table as a concession in Sec 6 negotiations. That did not happen. This should tell us about the many conflicting rumors from trusted sources.
2) Lots of chatter as to whether this is an adequate penalty for the severity of offense. No numbers to back up either side of the argument.
What I would like to see is the following numbers, from the company, DALPA, DPA, and any others:
A) Estimated financial gain made by company through contract violation.
B) Estimated financial loss to pilot force due to contract violation, to include opportunity costs (lost upgrades, green-slips due to understaffing, ALV to reserves, etc)
As far as doling out the moolah, again I have less than a whole dog in said fight. However I will postulate that precious few will be happy about how this is paid out, except the handful of us 2010 CJO recipients who have been told we're splitting $10M in recompense for not getting on property till 2014 due to the hiring freeze.
As others smarter than I have said here, the penalty should be through increased percentage of flying for the same amount of time they fell out of compliance (ie the next three years we get 51.5% of the JV flying for example) rather than some chump change that sets the precedent of further scope violation sales in the future. In addition, any settlement taking place now should include stiff penalties (hundreds of millions) for not living up to an agreement signed by this management team. Is this good business ethics? What if the pilot group decided to "go out of compliance" on some part of the contract. What would be the outcome?
#5419
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
The idea that an arbitrator will only allow money settlements is simply not true. The cancellation of the JV or the forced increase of EASK's by Delta was absolutely a possible remedy...but we'd have to plea for that remedy during the arbitration.
#5420
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Incidentally Carl, you have a bit of a habit of shooting inside the circle. I'm a scope hawk, always have been, I consider it the most important part of the contract and want it defended. I agree that ALPA didn't seem to prosecute this one very vigorously. But I have a very hard time seeing how this one could have turned out much differently. If we want vigorous non-monetary penalties for violation of scope, I think those penalties are going to have to be written into the contract language.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post