Originally Posted by
APCLurker
If we can get the new contract rammed through in record time via "constructive engagement," why should it take 4 years to end their contract non-compliance?
Is the "constructive engagement" less of a two-way street than it appears? Only when it suits them?
That being said I agree that compensation for the period of grievance is needed in addition to the ending of the non-compliance/violation. Compensation in exchange for allowing them to continue the violation with our agreement is the no-no.
Unfortunately the real issue is likely interest and intent. We have enough complicated and technical issues on our plate at any given time, and very few take the Bucking Bar approach and drill down into the codeshare specifics. Should we be mad - well yeah - our share of the flying is not in compliance with the specified levels. Should we be made whole? Absolutely.
But as long as we all jump at the chance to email the government about transferring our Haneda slot, or swapping slots at LGA, but we have no interest in bashing down the company's door over a section 1 violation, then the company has no motivation to do anything differently
ALPA or not - 10,000 angry pilots would make for a productive direct relationship with the company. But since only 100 or so are probably troubled by this issue on a daily basis...
Guess the question is - what is our goal? I'd quote the SPC Chairman but it's probably something along the lines of "continue constructive engagement". That's not planning - that's pandering to the company and the majority of happy pilots at Delta.