FL370esq

Fixed the last part for you. 😁

I think some pilots get confused about the term "status quo" and how it applies to us. Whether we are in "Section 6" negotiations or not is irrelevant to the pilot-side of the equation.

45 U.S.C. §152 is, in fact, the statutory reference you were asking for. In it's first section it says:

"It shall be the duty of all...employees to exert every reasonable effort to...maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof."

There is no express "status quo" provision that applies to pilots per se. Let's say, for giggles, we have traveled to Fantasyland and we reach and ratify a new TA next month with an amendable date of December 31st, 2022. Then, next summer, the 4th floor decides to implement Sodomizer v2.0 after determining that we only really need to hire 250 pilots. So....the pain experienced in the "Summer of Love" 2019 is being experienced yet again in July 2020, but even worse. Do you think the pilots could start a "No OT" campaign for August 2020 seeing as we would not be in Section 6 negotiations and, as some pilots believe, therefore not under a "status quo" requirement? I think that trip through the US District Court for the Northern District of GA would end very poorly for DALPA.

As for 45 U.S.C. §156 (which is the codified version for Section Six of the Railway Labor Act), you are correct. That is the statutory provision that states that once negotiations are opened, "rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon."

There may be an argument that while we were in Section 6 negotiations this summer, the Company altered the working conditions (to the detriment of the pilot group) to such an extent that they should be enjoined from doing so again until an agreement is reached but, I think we would find a "Motion Denied" letter in our mailbox if such a case was filed.

I would highly recommend reading the January 18th, 2001 decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Delta Air Lines, Inc v. Air Line Pilots Association. It will give you and those who weren't on property some insight into the Court's perspective on this whole issue.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-...t/1362939.html