Relevance of 717 to SWA continues to diminish
09-03-2011, 06:32 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,638
Read the entire ruling. It does not order individual pilots to work overtime or require any pilot to work overtime. It requires the union to attempt to return pilots to normal work patterns. No pilot was ordered to fly or work a overtime trip by the court. Management made no attempts to force pilots to fly overtime beyond their contractual right to attempt to assign trips. Management did go after individual pilots who attempted to coerce other pilots into not flying overtime. Here is what the court wanted put out to the pilots and still put out today.
Of particular note, the Delta MEC reminds all pilots of the continuing requirement to comply with the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. As you will recall, the court ordered that we may not engage in any activity, including Forum posts, which promotes illegal concerted activity. Please keep the following in mind when you elect to participate in the Delta MEC Forum.
*
With its January 2001 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals established the law for this circuit.
*
The court found:
o
ALPA had an affirmative duty, enforceable by injunction, to direct pilots to cease premature self-help.
o
The pilots' conduct violated the RLA provision imposing on carriers and pilots a duty to make and maintain agreements in a way so as to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier.
o
If the union had lost control of its members and the members were operating contrary to the union's direction, other more severe remedies might be available to the court.
When participating on the Delta MEC Forum, it is imperative that all pilots refrain from engaging in any discussion regarding unlawful concerted activity. This includes initiating or replying to any such post. Subject posts will be removed immediately, and the offending pilot may face immediate suspension from the Forum.
Of particular note, the Delta MEC reminds all pilots of the continuing requirement to comply with the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. As you will recall, the court ordered that we may not engage in any activity, including Forum posts, which promotes illegal concerted activity. Please keep the following in mind when you elect to participate in the Delta MEC Forum.
*
With its January 2001 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals established the law for this circuit.
*
The court found:
o
ALPA had an affirmative duty, enforceable by injunction, to direct pilots to cease premature self-help.
o
The pilots' conduct violated the RLA provision imposing on carriers and pilots a duty to make and maintain agreements in a way so as to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier.
o
If the union had lost control of its members and the members were operating contrary to the union's direction, other more severe remedies might be available to the court.
When participating on the Delta MEC Forum, it is imperative that all pilots refrain from engaging in any discussion regarding unlawful concerted activity. This includes initiating or replying to any such post. Subject posts will be removed immediately, and the offending pilot may face immediate suspension from the Forum.
09-03-2011, 07:09 PM
#92
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Duly noted. ... if I had a dime for every time I've said/heard that only to have the unpossible come true, I'd have at least enough for a keg of beer. And enough left over to buy a bunch of plastic cups.
Never say never.
Thanks, I guess the appeals court ruling (below) that I read a couple of hours ago was a figment of my imagination. As well as this article: Delta Seeks Court Order Forcing Pilot Overtime - ABC News
and this article: CNN.com - Travel - Appeals court rules for Delta in dispute with pilots - January 19, 2001
Here's the appeals ruling: 238 F3d 1300 Delta Air Lines Inc v. Air Line Pilots Association International et al. | OpenJurist
Never say never.
Thanks, I guess the appeals court ruling (below) that I read a couple of hours ago was a figment of my imagination. As well as this article: Delta Seeks Court Order Forcing Pilot Overtime - ABC News
and this article: CNN.com - Travel - Appeals court rules for Delta in dispute with pilots - January 19, 2001
Here's the appeals ruling: 238 F3d 1300 Delta Air Lines Inc v. Air Line Pilots Association International et al. | OpenJurist
It is a reason why UPS had it put in their contract that if anyone was on furlough no open time pickups were legal.
09-03-2011, 07:48 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Sailingfun, however you want to try to talk your way out of admitting you were wrong is cool. I read the entire ruling. Again, here's the pertinent portion of your original post:
Paragraph 4:
Paragraph 11:
Paragraph 16:
Paragraph 19:
Paragraph 22:
Note 22:
Essentially, there were two findings against DALPA. First, that some some pilots coerced others to not pick up overtime - you cited only that portion of the ruling.
Second (the part that I cited), that the pilots would need to pick up open time that was similar to historic norms. Note the portion of paragraph 22 that I bolded.
The ruling covered both aspects of the no overtime campaign - concerted action to voluntarily withholding overtime labor and coercion by some pilots to cause others to not fly overtime.
I think you've completely missed the way that the court interpreted "interruption of commerce" and status quo.
I also posted the ENTIRE appeals court ruling; please read it. It's rather clear in what it states. The newspaper title is correct, although it only captured part of the scope of the ruling.
Let me post the link to the ruling again: 238 F3d 1300 Delta Air Lines Inc v. Air Line Pilots Association International et al. | OpenJurist
Last no court judgement was won ordering pilots to fly overtime at Delta. Someone is giving you some very bad information. In fact there was never a lawsuit about pilots flying overtime. There was a lawsuit to stop harassment of pilots flying overtime within the contractual rules. No one was ordered to fly any over time. Pure myth on your part.
Although each individual pilot may make personal choices about how and whether to work overtime, Delta relies upon many of the pilots choosing to work this open time to fulfill its scheduled flights. If all of Delta's pilots were to refuse to pick up additional flights and refuse to work overtime,
A failure by either side to maintain the status quo during the bargaining and mediation process may give rise to injunctive relief, even without the customary showing of irreparable injury. Id.; see also Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co., 396 U.S. 142, 90 S. Ct. 294 (upholding a status quo injunction).
We reject ALPA's contention that the CBA "arguably" allows all pilots to refuse to work overtime, when it is clear industry practice to structure flight schedules with "open time" built in. The only reasonable explanation for this customary practice is an expectation that not all of the pilots will choose to refrain from working overtime at the same time; this is implicit in the CBA. Further, this dispute centers on 45 U.S.C. 152 First, which imposes a statutory obligation "to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements." This clear statutory provision is at the heart of the RLA and is clearly within the province of the federal courts to enforce. When the public interest, commerce, and a clear statutory provision are implicated, we will not shy away from holding the parties to their duties under the RLA so as to avoid "any interruption to commerce."
The district court made explicit findings that there was an "ongoing concerted effort on the part of some Delta pilots to refuse overtime work."
Therefore, the district court, on remand, should enjoin ALPA to take specific steps aimed at stopping the pilots' no-overtime campaign and resuming normal operations of Delta's operations, including its overtime scheduling.
Because we agree with the district court that the individual pilots are making a concerted, collective effort to reject overtime and institute an unlawful disruption of Delta's operations, we need not rule on whether ALPA has ratified the pilots' actions and is therefore directly responsible for the no-overtime campaign. The duty of ALPA under the RLA is sufficiently high that even if it has not sponsored or ratified the unlawful job action by the pilots, it has a duty to end such unlawful action.
Second (the part that I cited), that the pilots would need to pick up open time that was similar to historic norms. Note the portion of paragraph 22 that I bolded.
The ruling covered both aspects of the no overtime campaign - concerted action to voluntarily withholding overtime labor and coercion by some pilots to cause others to not fly overtime.
I think you've completely missed the way that the court interpreted "interruption of commerce" and status quo.
Notice that you quoted a couple news articles... who usually have pretty misleading titles thanks to "experts" that don't know jack. sailingfun was there, I've been briefed on it though I wasn't, and his description of the overtime thing is correct.
It is a reason why UPS had it put in their contract that if anyone was on furlough no open time pickups were legal.
It is a reason why UPS had it put in their contract that if anyone was on furlough no open time pickups were legal.
Let me post the link to the ruling again: 238 F3d 1300 Delta Air Lines Inc v. Air Line Pilots Association International et al. | OpenJurist
09-03-2011, 10:53 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
There is no way DL would (or should) end up taking any AT pilots over a capacity neutral (for AT/SW) airplane lease swap. That is not a fragmentation. I would agree that if DL got AT metal and SW/AT got no replacement for that metal, and the amount in question was enough to trigger AT's section 1 fragmentation language (usually defined as both a single event and a large percentage of the fleet in said single event, all directly moved from one to another) then we should and likely would take a proportional number of pilots. None of that will play out in this (rumored) instance though.
If SW gives back 717 leases to BA and replaces them with an approximately similar number of 717's, there is no justification whatsoever to give pilots a sport bidding option between two airlines just for fun on what some want to see as a juicy little technicality.
And the gate swap rumor that I've heard is pretty much capacity neutral anyway. SW would just end up with a similar number of gates in one concourse instead of two. DL would still be spread out all over the airport, but would still benefit a little bit by effectively eliminating the equivalent number of C to D and D to C concourse swaps.
Trading planes/swapping out a fleet with another fleet is not a "fragmentation" by any stretch of the immagination, especially if its done through a third party capital leasing company. No one is going to get to play "which airline shall I choose....its Friday, Friday..." over this even if it does happen.
AT's section 1 will cover the SWA outright purchase far better than it ever could cover a nebulous leasing company aircrat swap. Its pure purple kool aid clown car fantasy to think that this is some kind of gotcha technicality that gets SWA off the hook from taking all the AT pilots in an arbitrated scenario if necessary. No one cares about the "culture" there. This is happening.
If SW gives back 717 leases to BA and replaces them with an approximately similar number of 717's, there is no justification whatsoever to give pilots a sport bidding option between two airlines just for fun on what some want to see as a juicy little technicality.
And the gate swap rumor that I've heard is pretty much capacity neutral anyway. SW would just end up with a similar number of gates in one concourse instead of two. DL would still be spread out all over the airport, but would still benefit a little bit by effectively eliminating the equivalent number of C to D and D to C concourse swaps.
Trading planes/swapping out a fleet with another fleet is not a "fragmentation" by any stretch of the immagination, especially if its done through a third party capital leasing company. No one is going to get to play "which airline shall I choose....its Friday, Friday..." over this even if it does happen.
AT's section 1 will cover the SWA outright purchase far better than it ever could cover a nebulous leasing company aircrat swap. Its pure purple kool aid clown car fantasy to think that this is some kind of gotcha technicality that gets SWA off the hook from taking all the AT pilots in an arbitrated scenario if necessary. No one cares about the "culture" there. This is happening.
09-04-2011, 04:11 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
Gloopy,
Good analysis. Have asked my Reps and they did some digging and there is no chatter on any of this on the MEC. In fact this was the first they heard of it. Of course in this kind of transaction the company does not need to consult us, already have pay rates, and we'd probably learn of the deal a few hours before the press release. We DO know that RA is a fan of the DC9 series in modern trim as a small NB due to the economics of acquisition, training, and FO has just reaffirmed commitment to the frame. Reading the tea leaves I could see this happening as described, with it essentially being a capacity neutral move for both carriers allowing WN to get rid of a fleet they don't want and for us to cost effectively stretch the existing small NB fleet until a true next gen is available.
Good analysis. Have asked my Reps and they did some digging and there is no chatter on any of this on the MEC. In fact this was the first they heard of it. Of course in this kind of transaction the company does not need to consult us, already have pay rates, and we'd probably learn of the deal a few hours before the press release. We DO know that RA is a fan of the DC9 series in modern trim as a small NB due to the economics of acquisition, training, and FO has just reaffirmed commitment to the frame. Reading the tea leaves I could see this happening as described, with it essentially being a capacity neutral move for both carriers allowing WN to get rid of a fleet they don't want and for us to cost effectively stretch the existing small NB fleet until a true next gen is available.
09-04-2011, 05:46 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
I think you gentlemen are missing the finer points of how Southwest's SL8 was constructed. All new 737s coming onto property go to the Southwest subcorporation, not the AirTran subcorporation.
I don't know the probability of such an event but if someone had laid out the hijackers' plans on 10 Sep 01, they would have been told that it was pure purple clown car fantasy. And I would have agreed that it was pure fantasy.
I don't know the probability of such an event but if someone had laid out the hijackers' plans on 10 Sep 01, they would have been told that it was pure purple clown car fantasy. And I would have agreed that it was pure fantasy.
09-04-2011, 06:48 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Still in one
Posts: 784
I think you gentlemen are missing the finer points of how Southwest's SL8 was constructed. All new 737s coming onto property go to the Southwest subcorporation, not the AirTran subcorporation.
I don't know the probability of such an event but if someone had laid out the hijackers' plans on 10 Sep 01, they would have been told that it was pure purple clown car fantasy. And I would have agreed that it was pure fantasy.
I don't know the probability of such an event but if someone had laid out the hijackers' plans on 10 Sep 01, they would have been told that it was pure purple clown car fantasy. And I would have agreed that it was pure fantasy.
As described it would probably be capacity neutral for DAL, and why would they want to inherit a headache resulting furloughs and labor turmoil just as they are heading into contract negotiations?
As Sailing mentioned I'd think DAL would likely not do the deal and buy new airframes if they were forced to buy pilots with the airplanes.
09-04-2011, 08:18 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Not to mention plenty 717 on the open market at bargain prices... HA just bought theirs for 13.5M/jet that's about half the going rate of a CRJ900.
Cheers
George
09-04-2011, 08:36 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
09-04-2011, 09:22 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Even fewer MD90s were built, yet Delta is snapping them up 10-12 at a time.
Total MD90, 116 produced
Total MD95 (717), 156 produced
30-ish DC-9-50s at Delta, with no true mainline replacement.
What makes you think should Delta want to add the 717 as a DC-9-50 replacement, they would do it any differently than with the MD90?
FWIW Boeing Capital had 22 717 parked as of 2 weeks ago.
Only 2 remain "available" as of the last week.
- Someone just picked up 20 717s...
- Delta "postpones the 100 seater RFP.
Cheers
George
Last edited by georgetg; 09-04-2011 at 09:34 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
