|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 2951328)
So, no improvements at all, eh? It's bullet proof and perfect?
The notion that if we don't address Scope this contract then we'll lose serious WB jobs as if Section 1 doesn't exist is false. Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2951332)
You may have missed it but my original statement was there is no need to address Scope unless the company has an offer drastically in our favor. Our default section 1 language provides excellent protections in which our JV partners have already maxed out their flying. Nowhere to go but up for Delta WB flying.
The notion that if we don't address Scope this contract then we'll lose serious WB jobs as if Section 1 doesn't exist is false. Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by GoneSailing
(Post 2951336)
Our section one is virtually with not teeth. Even a Swiss cheese would be proud of those holes.
Lots of shoring up needs to be happening... |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2951081)
There's a balance to everything. Without JVs Delta wouldn't be remotely the airline it is today, domestically or internationally. We'll see what happens. Overall I'm happy not only with our current Scope but our PWA for the long term.
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2951332)
You may have missed it but my original statement was there is no need to address Scope unless the company has an offer drastically in our favor. Our default section 1 language provides excellent protections in which our JV partners have already maxed out their flying. Nowhere to go but up for Delta WB flying.
The notion that if we don't address Scope this contract then we'll lose serious WB jobs as if Section 1 doesn't exist is false. Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
DL hates paying the high profit sharing...the only reason 80,000 employees get it is because the pilots have it in their contract. PS was a quid pro quo in exchange for 60%FAE...time to reverse it.
|
Originally Posted by astrojet
(Post 2951489)
DL hates paying the high profit sharing...the only reason 80,000 employees get it is because the pilots have it in their contract. PS was a quid pro quo in exchange for 60%FAE...time to reverse it.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 2951341)
Exactly... numerous loop holes have been exploited, violations have occurred with minimal recourse (look at the Donatelli 30 million dollar joke before TA1), and so on.
Lots of shoring up needs to be happening... Therein lies the true power for corporations operating under the RLA: they are given the ability to continue running the operation while exploiting and violating CBA’s. Our general recourse, as a labor group, is to contest issues via arbitration. The company is free to push the limits of the CBA with their risk being employee goodwill and the occasional loss under arbitration. But a new (BETTER!) contract won’t change the course for a company who’s mantra is do what they want and deal with it in arbitration. I came from a carrier who continually pursued this strategy to great effect. Delta, thankfully in my opinion, isn’t on their same level. But they aren’t innocent either and a simple leadership/strategy change could upend that at any time. Anyway, my point is that if scope violations occur today under the current PWA, then they will likely occur “tomorrow” under a new PWA too unless the company feels that they can profitably operate within any agreed-to confines. Another tool to prevent this mentality is if the corporation views the labor force as unified (and ****ed) which could then severely damage their operational performance. And no, don’t kid yourself by saying we should have language that gives severe financial penalties to the company should they violate the PWA. They’ll likely never agree to tie their hands in such a way that prevents them from seeking resolution via the RLA and arbitration. They’d actually be quite foolish to do so and I suspect they are smart enough to know that. |
Originally Posted by astrojet
(Post 2951489)
DL hates paying the high profit sharing...the only reason 80,000 employees get it is because the pilots have it in their contract. PS was a quid pro quo in exchange for 60%FAE...time to reverse it.
|
Originally Posted by RonRicco
(Post 2951526)
That is a false statement. PS was not a trade for the termination of the DB. Ask the guys who negotiated it in LOA 46. The DB was frozen with hopes of being able to thaw it later. PS was considered “schmuck” insurance for the pay cuts in case there was a quick rebound in the company.
DAL filed for BK September 14, 2005. Agreement not to fight the DB termination was LOA 51 Effective 01 June 2006 signed by Lee Moak/Gerald Grinstein. Scoop |
Originally Posted by astrojet
(Post 2951489)
DL hates paying the high profit sharing...the only reason 80,000 employees get it is because the pilots have it in their contract. PS was a quid pro quo in exchange for 60%FAE...time to reverse it.
So, my question for you is.....who got the PS included in the contract? I think pilots is the general, overarching answer. Would those be NWA or DAL pilots? From your other posts, were you responsible for the PS or did you get it because some other group(DL pilots) negotiated it and you reaped the reward(aka the other 80,000 employees)? "Never look a gift horse in the mouth" In general, I agree with your basic premise....things the pilots negotiate have tremendous costs to the company due to "me too" corollaries. It IS difficult to negotiate good shiznit for the pilots wherein we reap ALL the rewards. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 2951515)
How do you prevent a “violation”? A violation means they didn’t adhere to the current contract as it is written. So how would new language change that? A violation is a violation, regardless of whatever the language says.
Therein lies the true power for corporations operating under the RLA: they are given the ability to continue running the operation while exploiting and violating CBA’s. Our general recourse, as a labor group, is to contest issues via arbitration. The company is free to push the limits of the CBA with their risk being employee goodwill and the occasional loss under arbitration. But a new (BETTER!) contract won’t change the course for a company who’s mantra is do what they want and deal with it in arbitration. I came from a carrier who continually pursued this strategy to great effect. Delta, thankfully in my opinion, isn’t on their same level. But they aren’t innocent either and a simple leadership/strategy change could upend that at any time. Anyway, my point is that if scope violations occur today under the current PWA, then they will likely occur “tomorrow” under a new PWA too unless the company feels that they can profitably operate within any agreed-to confines. Another tool to prevent this mentality is if the corporation views the labor force as unified (and ****ed) which could then severely damage their operational performance. And no, don’t kid yourself by saying we should have language that gives severe financial penalties to the company should they violate the PWA. They’ll likely never agree to tie their hands in such a way that prevents them from seeking resolution via the RLA and arbitration. They’d actually be quite foolish to do so and I suspect they are smart enough to know that. Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2951325)
On complex PWA sections like Scope it seems like it's easier for some folks to just personally attack others rather than address exactly what they mean by improve Scope language.
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2951332)
You may have missed it but my original statement was there is no need to address Scope unless the company has an offer drastically in our favor. Our default section 1 language provides excellent protections in which our JV partners have already maxed out their flying. Nowhere to go but up for Delta WB flying.
The notion that if we don't address Scope this contract then we'll lose serious WB jobs as if Section 1 doesn't exist is false. Forcing Delta WB growth by maxing out our JV contract partners is not scope protection, it is a lopsided agreement. Nobody with a reasonable approach to the contract is claiming we will "lose serious WB jobs", they are advocating for improvements in our contract during record profits. The JV growth is close to equitable, but the overwhelming stance of Delta pilots is that we are a few percent short of where we should be. Delta has been very clear that the US based pilots are just one division of this worldly airline conglomerate. |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 2951770)
I think one improvement that most of us consider necessary is a 50% split. Close to half is not half.
We need to address scope in EVERY contract. Small incremental improvements add up over several contract cycles. This is the opposite of the gradual scope erosion the company is working toward. Forcing Delta WB growth by maxing out our JV contract partners is not scope protection, it is a lopsided agreement. Nobody with a reasonable approach to the contract is claiming we will "lose serious WB jobs", they are advocating for improvements in our contract during record profits. The JV growth is close to equitable, but the overwhelming stance of Delta pilots is that we are a few percent short of where we should be. Delta has been very clear that the US based pilots are just one division of this worldly airline conglomerate. |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 2951784)
What would be your ideal split for Virgin Atlantic and us?
Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands