|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2882458)
Understood. According to Jim Graham, it was inadvertent:
"Quite simply, when we projected the baseline flying as part of our new relationship with Korean Airlines, we inadvertently missed Korean’s one flight between Japan and Honolulu. When this single flight is included in the calculation, it puts us temporarily below one measure of our baseline flying requirement for the JV." Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Dude,
Your original post made no sense. A violation is a violation is a violation. It really doesn’t matter what the reason is, especially since the company also violates our PWA routinely regarding DH policy. In a recent company video seat changes were “blamed” on a “reseating engine” that reissues all seats with any equipment change. Too bad it puts DHing Pilots at the back of the list directly violating The PWA. Since all seats are being assigned from scratch there is zero reason not to follow the PWA priority, but guess what? The company blames it on IT incompetence, so I guess we shouldn’t care because it’s a “technicality?” We should not overlook any violations of the PWA, no matter what the reason. Finally I am at a loss for your motive in defending the company for violating the PWA. :confused: If your intent was to solicit support for this type of thinking you have achieved the exact opposite result. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2882334)
Many of you make a very good point. Scope is Section 1 for a reason. It's the most important Section of our Contract. I'm a strong supporter of our current Scope language and find it to be excellent. IMO, our Scope language caught something it was not intended to catch with the Korean NRT-HNL route which activated USA-Japan flying block hour protection in the midst of the Narita Hub wind down. Granted Korean could just kill the route and make this whole issue go away.
By no means should we ignore the violation. Hopefully the NC is already doing it but it should be used as leverage for greater gains in a Korean JV agreement or greater gains in other sections of our Contract. For example make only the NRT-HNL flight exempt and fix Deadheading. The previous administration saw the forrest for the trees and renegotiated the Narita Fifth Freedom flight PWA language for more sensible Trans Pacific block hour language that went along with the company's restructuring plans. Again in terms of the big picture the Union shows Pacific block hours starting a steep decline in 2014 while our global widebody block hours show stable or growing during that time period which along with our profit sharing checks suggest the flying was reallocated to more profitable theatres. Cue the DALPA slogan from the Virgin LOA: Global Protection trumps Threatre Protection. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...cfdcfbc464.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...77dba7125f.jpg Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
If half of the scope violations are because of one KA flight, then remove our code from that flight entirely or we do that flight ourselves. And no one buys the lame excuse that foreign airlines do whatever they want ergo we are helpless. That's the same excuse made when we went below the fake minimum floor (which was really the target all along) of the last AF/et al JV.
Poor DL, a significant stakeholder and by far the more powerful airline in the alliance can't do anything when a "partner" airline thumbs their nose at us and says we do what we wanna do therefore we have to pull down or accept a scope violation to accommodate. No one actually believes that including those offering it as an excuse. Going forward hopefully we don't fall for any future fake targets with a minimum floor for enforcement because that floor will simply be the barely achieved goal to the best of their ability. Its high time that we take the upper range of these arrangements as the new floor for a few contract cycles at least. |
Originally Posted by Peoloto
(Post 2882536)
Trade international flying for deadhead rules. Wow, you really are something special.
Again by no means am I saying ignore it. We can either keep whining about a violation that will never get fixed or use it as leverage for greater gains. Or we can wait for the Arbitrator determined settlement, which history has shown, will likely be in the Company's favor. Reference the 350 Delivery Grievance Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2882511)
Dude,
Your original post made no sense. A violation is a violation is a violation. It really doesn’t matter what the reason is, especially since the company also violates our PWA routinely regarding DH policy. In a recent company video seat changes were “blamed” on a “reseating engine” that reissues all seats with any equipment change. Too bad it puts DHing Pilots at the back of the list directly violating The PWA. Since all seats are being assigned from scratch there is zero reason not to follow the PWA priority, but guess what? The company blames it on IT incompetence, so I guess we shouldn’t care because it’s a “technicality?” We should not overlook any violations of the PWA, no matter what the reason. Finally I am at a loss for your motive in defending the company for violating the PWA. :confused: If your intent was to solicit support for this type of thinking you have achieved the exact opposite result. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Chakerik
(Post 2882577)
This. What is this guy's motive?? (Trip7 not Scoop) I don't get it.
|
Yes there are scope violations. I don’t really need an email, or several of them, every time there is a violation increase of one. Obviously the intent is to fire up the troops for Section 6 negotiations. Consider us fired up.
I believe what Trip 7 is getting at is that this MEC would be better off truly negotiating rather than screaming “Scope violation!” once a week, or daily it seems. It has very little impact on the desired result we all want and makes the MEC look shrill and impotent. A better strategy would be a monthly (not daily) summary of violations and implement a better strategy: grieve them and negotiate a new TA. |
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2882609)
Yes there are scope violations. I don’t really need an email, or several of them, every time there is a violation increase of one. Obviously the intent is to fire up the troops for Section 6 negotiations. Consider us fired up.
I believe what Trip 7 is getting at is that this MEC would be better off truly negotiating rather than screaming “Scope violation!” once a week, or daily it seems. It has very little impact on the desired result we all want and makes the MEC look shrill and impotent. A better strategy would be a monthly (not daily) summary of violations and implement a better strategy: grieve them and negotiate a new TA. Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 2882260)
I think length of service is irrelevant and a distraction. It’s no different than someone from one generation complaining how the next generation (that they helped to raise, ironically) is so terrible.
Most of us know how important Scope is from the day we set foot on property. Don’t diminish our intelligence because we’ve been here “X” fewer days than you. I value experience in just about every aspect of life, to include airline operations, time spent in the captain's seat, and living through numerous contract and negotiations cycles. All measurements correlate to more original, authentic and meaningful thought in my humble opinion. Without actual experience, one tends to regurgitate stuff they have heard elsewhere at risk of representing it as their own devised concoction. Those who actually devise their own thought concoctions without much experience are to be taken with a grain of salt and often miss the mark. Had Scoop or Denny or any number of other more seasoned members posted Trip7's post I would read it repeatedly and try harder to wrap my head around their perspective. In Trip7's case, I rarely find a need to reread. JMHO. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:38 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands