You're going to have to clarify here. Do you believe that the number of permitted aircraft would remain at 120 if the flow went away?
Slow that was my concern I tried to communicate a few posts ago. The wording of the PWA states "becomes unavailable" and it does not define by what means.
My fear was that if the airline was parted out to other DCI carriers for whatever means, the flow could in fact be null and void by interpretation. You stated that the company understood the wording to be by any means not just someone canceling the flow with the CPS certificate (airline and DAL).
In effect, the CPS certificate dies, the planes go to another DCI carrier, and thus CPS is not a business. Because the LOA's are with "CPS" (and "DAL") and not the jets, you stated that it is unavailable, period, with no room for interpretation.
We were looking at successorship issues if the airline went away, but the airplanes went to another DCI carrier and seeing what power the LOA's would have in an arbitration and or court of law.
Go ask a North rep. Talk to two or three of them, then call a South rep or two. If you do that amount of work, you will probably get to a decent summation of what the real reasons were.
The one I have been told over and over for the last six month was the conflict of interest of DALPA who represents the goals and interests of Delta pilots representing the goals and interests of regional pilots.
Add to that, that many cited that this was the plan all along and it was actually written out that once the majority of the members at CPS were off probation and could represent themselves, that this was the course that was planned.
I've heard that argument before with other airlines and it seems to be the dumbest one of all. What are the differences in our goals and interests???
Slow that was my concern I tried to communicate a few posts ago. The wording of the PWA states "becomes unavailable" and it does not define by what means.
My fear was that if the airline was parted out to other DCI carriers for whatever means, the flow could in fact be null and void by interpretation. You stated that the company understood the wording to be by any means not just someone canceling the flow with the CPS certificate (airline and DAL).
In effect, the CPS certificate dies, the planes go to another DCI carrier, and thus CPS is not a business. Because the LOA's are with "CPS" (and "DAL") and not the jets, you stated that it is unavailable, period, with no room for interpretation.
We were looking at successorship issues if the airline went away, but the airplanes went to another DCI carrier and seeing what power the LOA's would have in an arbitration and or court of law.
Have no fear.
The LOA's are in our contract, making the flow contractual. Again, here's the operative language:
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85.
It doesn't provide management an out for any reason. Their is flow and 120 permitted aircraft, or there isn't and only 85 are permitted.
Position: Living out of a suitcase & stealing internet from the hotel bar
Posts: 1,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowplay
Have no fear.
The LOA's are in our contract, making the flow contractual. Again, here's the operative language:
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85.
It doesn't provide management an out for any reason. Their is flow and 120 permitted aircraft, or there isn't and only 85 are permitted.
Slow:
Then how about our waiver to ASA and Comair? I can produce the letter that proves LOA 2006-10 has already ceased to be available.
I'm pretty sure a waiver mitigates our ability to enforce this language. Do you disagree? Further, our MEC does not want to enforce this language.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
In matters of contract enforcement - no - it does not.
You're going to have to clarify here. Do you believe that the number of permitted aircraft would remain at 120 if the flow went away?
If the flow went away as the result of a transaction that no longer had Compass or it's successor doing any flying for DAL, yes, I believe it could no longer be enforced.
The LOA's are in our contract, making the flow contractual. Again, here's the operative language:
Exception two: In the event the flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 and LOA 2006-14 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of jet aircraft configured with 71-76 passenger seats specified in Section 1 B. 40. d. will revert to 85.
It doesn't provide management an out for any reason. Their is flow and 120 permitted aircraft, or there isn't and only 85 are permitted.
Slow, my computer crashed a few months ago, and I do not have the LOA 2006-10 and 12 this second, but take a look at the wording of those LOA's and how the flow is defined. Is there a loophole in there?
I am not trying to pick a fight, really I am not. I am just trying to look for the proverbial loop hole. Call my a cynic
If the flow went away as the result of a transaction that no longer had Compass or it's successor doing any flying for DAL, yes, I believe it could no longer be enforced.
That is how I read it, and if there are negotiation notes and or other forms of documentation that state this is not the case, it would be good to know that.
None of the miscreants are running for office again, but one. It should be an election issue for him. The rest is water under the bridge. We must acknowledge failure and try to talk these guys out of defending their bankruptcy bargaining mentality before the next loss.
There is absolutely no point in excusing or in any way exonerating or explaining their vote. They failed to educate themselves on the issues, they failed to vote in accordance with the express interests of their pilots, they further divided our union and took action which will harm Delta pilots. It needs to be judged on its merits. Then we need to let it go, it is done.
You probably ought to take your own advice...
From my point of view you failed to educate yourself on the issues, you are advocating a path that isn't in the interest of your fellow pilots, you work to further divide our union, and you're attempting to take action which will harm Delta pilots. There is absolutely no point in excusing or in any way exonerating or explaining your past participation with a 4 letter abreviation...
You need to let it go. It is done.
The above is all tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Or you could just agree that rational people looked at a set of facts and came to a different conclusion. You don't have to question motives or impugn integrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Another consideration - supply and demand. As we supply more outsourced flying - demand for outsourced flying decreases. We already see this in 76 seat rates (which was the primary justification for this representational retreat). It would be prudent to run the numbers on 100 seat outsourcing and 130 and 160 and 180 seat outsourcing. The reason being that this could be economically modeled and like the 76 seat flying, I believe we would see that we sell flying for nearly nothing. Somebody needs to do the numbers to prove to the 767 crowd that selling everything short of the 757 does not benefit them, not a bit.
IF the EC adopts the Delta MEC recommendation for CPZ to form its own MEC in October 2010, where is the additional outsourced flying coming from? It isn't. You're making a straw man argument. Delta is capped at 153 76 seat jets. They have "headroom" for about 35 more 70 seat aircraft to hit the 255 70 seat and over cap, but ZERO are on order. The number of DCI aircraft and pilots continues to shrink meaninfully and rapidly.
Of the south voting reps, one was furloughed for 5 years (actually was an LAPD Officer). Only 6 were hired prior to 1996, and only three of the 13 are in the top 25% of the seniority list. The facts don't support your statement
I'm wondering who is really selfish here? You didn't get your way, so you whine and lash out.
Of course I am whining an lashing out. You would too if you were at a regional and sick and tired of hearing from DAL pilots that they want something different out of ALPA than its regional members. We want the same thing...They are using this as an excuse to take care of themselves. You can wonder till you are blue in the face (like the one above), but anyone educated on the issue actually knows what's going on here. What a load, this whole thing is a load. Half of Delta flying is flown by non-Delta pilots...that's a load. I am lashing out and YOU SHOULD BE TOO. I am frustated to see more mainline jobs at risk now and they will be dissapearing, but I am a "regional" pilot so you probably think I want my "regional" airline to grow to I can upgrade to captain sooner. I can upgrade here at Compass as the job I really get "transitioned" to the toilet paper contract we have here. Maybe you will get furloughed and have the pleasure of flying here. I take it you've never been at a regional before?
.
Linear Mode
