Originally Posted by
TED74
The company violated minimum staffing on the 717 at least once. The company was understaffed to deliver 350s, so they violated the contract. The company was understaffed in training, so they violated the contract best regards to instructor line flying. Management has acknowledged each of these instances, in addition to many other contractual violations. At times it seems they view the contract as a best practice, and not something they are obliged to follow.
My prior post was somewhat sarcastic and rhetorical. But to follow up on yours, can you point to the PWA section that establishes what the PWA agreed-upon remedy is if the Company fails to maintain "the total pilots required" for each position in each bid period? (22.C seems to establish there is a required number but not a remedy for failure to comply). What is the remedy if the company breaches 11.C.2 as they did with the 350 SLIs? Best I can tell, the answer to those questions lies solely within Sections 18 and 19 which puts the resolution in the hands of a slow, ineffective and often unpredictable process.
Maybe some day the System Board will follow through with their threat in the A-350 delivery grievance decision where the Board noted that “a repeated violation of this nature may well support the conclusion that a punitive award is in order.” Contracts are economic agreements. When the breach no longer becomes economical, then there will be compliance. It's up to DALPA to seek out those punitive damages (when necessary) to correct wilfull disregard and, based on the Company's actions across a spectrum of issues, that time might be fast approaching.