Originally Posted by
index
PMFJI your victory dance, but this is hardly holding the company's feet to the fire. As you stated, this is contractual. It is a section of the PWA that is black and white. Even DALPA would've won a grievance here. If it was in the company's best interest to thumb their nose at this particular contract section and have DALPA "fly now and grieve later," they WOULD have. The company chose to take the hit now but it was because they believed it was in THEIR best interest to do so. You obviously want to make the case that DALPA stood up to the bully and punched him in the nose, but that's just not what happened.
Do you honestly think DALPA forced management's hand here? Please tell me what leverage they used? Did they threaten to boycott the next management birthday party? Threaten to inflate the rat in front of the G.O.? I'm being sarcastic here, but really, what threat could or did DALPA make to ensure compliance with the contract?
A "win" against the company in a contractual dispute over areas of our contract where terms such as "normally," "good faith," "reasonably," "reasonable," "best efforts," etc...make the language therein virtually useless, THAT, my friend, would be a meaningful win.
The early conversions that the company agreed to in this circumstance are simply low hanging fruit, so low that even DALPA could "win" it.
And as far as your assertion of DALPA not lifting the company out of a hole they dug, have you forgotten about the PRPs/ROPES?
I have been told numerous times by Dalpa that the company cannot feasibly operate at our contractual mins. Now they are operating below the mins in some categories without canceling any flights yet.
It seems our assessment might not be correct.