LCA workaround--Status Quo no-no?
11-30-2015, 06:52 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,959
I would believe our leadership is waiting to see if the company is willing to negotiate before they would start grieving this kind of thing. Seems plausible. We will know shortly.
JM is not going to kow tow, give him a chance before we escalate to DEFCON 3. I'm ready to take this thing to the bitter end.
JM is not going to kow tow, give him a chance before we escalate to DEFCON 3. I'm ready to take this thing to the bitter end.
11-30-2015, 08:55 PM
#23
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,865
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
He is wrong. From Merriam Webster:
Full Definition of CODICIL
1
: a legal instrument made to modify an earlier will
2
: appendix, supplement
He was referring to the secondary definition of codicil - an appendix to our PWA.
FWIW - I still think its a change of the status quo.
Scoop
12-01-2015, 08:08 AM
#27
Wind the clock beoch
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by Scoop
It was a 100% direct quote. Like I said seems like a change in status quo to me. How about everyone calls their reps.
And by the way while the primary definition of codicil relates specifically to a will a secondary definition is basically an appendix.
Scoop
And by the way while the primary definition of codicil relates specifically to a will a secondary definition is basically an appendix.
Scoop
But.... your rep is wrong, plain and simple. Your Merriam-Webster secondary definition is quite a stretch.
Originally Posted by Scoop
He is wrong. From Merriam Webster:
Full Definition of CODICIL
1
: a legal instrument made to modify an earlier will
2
: appendix, supplement
He was referring to the secondary definition of codicil - an appendix to our PWA.
FWIW - I still think its a change of the status quo.
Scoop
Full Definition of CODICIL
1
: a legal instrument made to modify an earlier will
2
: appendix, supplement
He was referring to the secondary definition of codicil - an appendix to our PWA.
FWIW - I still think its a change of the status quo.
Scoop
You've gone from repeating what you were told to speaking for him ("he was referring to...) and defending it.
The point is, Scoop, words matter. Here's a section of our PWA, a/k/a the "Contract," that discusses the various methods our contract is amended. You will not see the terms "codicil" or "appendix."
"Section 28- Duration
C. Effect on Other Agreements
This PWA supercedes and cancels all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding, Memorandums of Understanding, Memorandums, Summaries and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Association prior to the date of signing of this PWA with the exception of the following Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding:
..."
These are the mechanisms (see above bolded terms) in which our contract is amended.
Now why does all this matter? What's all the fuss about using the wrong term to describe a method to amend our contract?
The point is our contract is made up of words and the meaning of those words can hinge on one word, even a comma. Your rep chose to use a term to describe an amendment to our contract that, to my knowledge, has NEVER been used before on ANY Delta pilot contract.
You told us what you were told by an "ALPA rep." Fine. What level of confidence should we have in his OPINION, if he can't even get the terminology correct?
Originally Posted by Scoop
I just talked to a rep and was told the DALPA attorney's looked at it and it is allowed by a codicil to the pwa.
The most updated "Live Contract," dated May 2015, can be found on the DALPA website. There are exactly 14 "Letters of Understanding" and 14 "Memorandums of Understanding." It should be in there, right?
I have ZERO confidence in your rep or the unnamed "DALPA attorney's [sic]" who allegedly "looked at it." Claiming the existence of a "codicil" that allows for such practice immediately raises questions regarding your rep's credibility on this issue.
I realize you disapprove of the process Scoop, as do I, but it's dangerous to take something at face value whether it be from a rep, ALPA attorney, chief pilot, scheduler, whomever. Just because someone says it's so doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
12-01-2015, 09:13 AM
#28
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by index
I don't fault you for repeating verbatim what your ill-informed rep told you, after all, that's not your fault.
But.... your rep is wrong, plain and simple. Your Merriam-Webster secondary definition is quite a stretch.
No Scoop, it is your rep (and now you for defending him) that are wrong.
You've gone from repeating what you were told to speaking for him ("he was referring to...) and defending it.
The point is, Scoop, words matter. Here's a section of our PWA, a/k/a the "Contract," that discusses the various methods our contract is amended. You will not see the terms "codicil" or "appendix."
"Section 28- Duration
C. Effect on Other Agreements
This PWA supercedes and cancels all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding, Memorandums of Understanding, Memorandums, Summaries and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Association prior to the date of signing of this PWA with the exception of the following Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding:
..."
These are the mechanisms (see above bolded terms) in which our contract is amended.
Now why does all this matter? What's all the fuss about using the wrong term to describe a method to amend our contract?
The point is our contract is made up of words and the meaning of those words can hinge on one word, even a comma. Your rep chose to use a term to describe an amendment to our contract that, to my knowledge, has NEVER been used before on ANY Delta pilot contract.
You told us what you were told by an "ALPA rep." Fine. What level of confidence should we have in his OPINION, if he can't even get the terminology correct?
I asked you to have him provide the exact language from whatever document he claims allows this practice to occur. Where is it? Will you ask your rep to contact the DALPA attorney whom he allegedly got this information from and provide us an exact contract reference? It shouldn't be that difficult to find if it indeed exists.
The most updated "Live Contract," dated May 2015, can be found on the DALPA website. There are exactly 14 "Letters of Understanding" and 14 "Memorandums of Understanding." It should be in there, right?
I have ZERO confidence in your rep or the unnamed "DALPA attorney's [sic]" who allegedly "looked at it." Claiming the existence of a "codicil" that allows for such practice immediately raises questions regarding your rep's credibility on this issue.
I realize you disapprove of the process Scoop, as do I, but it's dangerous to take something at face value whether it be from a rep, ALPA attorney, chief pilot, scheduler, whomever. Just because someone says it's so doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
But.... your rep is wrong, plain and simple. Your Merriam-Webster secondary definition is quite a stretch.
No Scoop, it is your rep (and now you for defending him) that are wrong.
You've gone from repeating what you were told to speaking for him ("he was referring to...) and defending it.
The point is, Scoop, words matter. Here's a section of our PWA, a/k/a the "Contract," that discusses the various methods our contract is amended. You will not see the terms "codicil" or "appendix."
"Section 28- Duration
C. Effect on Other Agreements
This PWA supercedes and cancels all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding, Memorandums of Understanding, Memorandums, Summaries and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Association prior to the date of signing of this PWA with the exception of the following Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding:
..."
These are the mechanisms (see above bolded terms) in which our contract is amended.
Now why does all this matter? What's all the fuss about using the wrong term to describe a method to amend our contract?
The point is our contract is made up of words and the meaning of those words can hinge on one word, even a comma. Your rep chose to use a term to describe an amendment to our contract that, to my knowledge, has NEVER been used before on ANY Delta pilot contract.
You told us what you were told by an "ALPA rep." Fine. What level of confidence should we have in his OPINION, if he can't even get the terminology correct?
I asked you to have him provide the exact language from whatever document he claims allows this practice to occur. Where is it? Will you ask your rep to contact the DALPA attorney whom he allegedly got this information from and provide us an exact contract reference? It shouldn't be that difficult to find if it indeed exists.
The most updated "Live Contract," dated May 2015, can be found on the DALPA website. There are exactly 14 "Letters of Understanding" and 14 "Memorandums of Understanding." It should be in there, right?
I have ZERO confidence in your rep or the unnamed "DALPA attorney's [sic]" who allegedly "looked at it." Claiming the existence of a "codicil" that allows for such practice immediately raises questions regarding your rep's credibility on this issue.
I realize you disapprove of the process Scoop, as do I, but it's dangerous to take something at face value whether it be from a rep, ALPA attorney, chief pilot, scheduler, whomever. Just because someone says it's so doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
12-01-2015, 10:10 AM
#29
Straight QOL, homie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Scoop, if the rep you talked to said there is a "codicil," that means it's in writing.
Therefore, it should be easy for him to produce said document.
He backed himself into a corner. Please hold his feet to the fire. He is lying.
And if in fact a "DALPA attorney" stated that, he/she should be fired. But I bet no DALPA attorney said any such thing.
Therefore, it should be easy for him to produce said document.
He backed himself into a corner. Please hold his feet to the fire. He is lying.
And if in fact a "DALPA attorney" stated that, he/she should be fired. But I bet no DALPA attorney said any such thing.
12-01-2015, 10:20 AM
#30
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,865
Originally Posted by index
I don't fault you for repeating verbatim what your ill-informed rep told you, after all, that's not your fault.
I realize you disapprove of the process Scoop, as do I, but it's dangerous to take something at face value whether it be from a rep, ALPA attorney, chief pilot, scheduler, whomever. Just because someone says it's so doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
I realize you disapprove of the process Scoop, as do I, but it's dangerous to take something at face value whether it be from a rep, ALPA attorney, chief pilot, scheduler, whomever. Just because someone says it's so doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
Index,
You say:
"You've gone from repeating what you were told to speaking for him ("he was referring to...) and defending it."
Nothing can be further from the truth - I am and have always been skeptical of this claim. The only thing I defended was the definition of a codicil which is not restricted to referencing wills.
Additionally if I was taking it at face value why would I be posting here and asking everyone to contact their Reps regarding this issue?
I am taking nothing at face value. I am awaiting a copy of the relevant language from my rep.
It was you who insisted that a codicil was a legal document relating to a will. Whether the document exist or not my Rep used the term correctly. He used codicil referring to an appendix or supplement to our PWA.
Finally I am highly skeptical of this and even if there is such a document I still think that the company putting LCA on Company Business in order to fly IOE events(if this is indeed happening) is a change to the status quo.
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
