35 Large RJs coming back?
05-26-2021 | 10:13 AM
#731
Trimming my beard
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
Delta Update:
ALPA will officially file a MEC grievance to halt the operation of RJs over 188, stating:
"Delta's management kept our most junior pilots on roller coaster ride for months, threatening furloughs while operating excess RJs".
Source: Email to members.
Looks like ALPA wants to ground 9E. Way to go guys.
ALPA will officially file a MEC grievance to halt the operation of RJs over 188, stating:
"Delta's management kept our most junior pilots on roller coaster ride for months, threatening furloughs while operating excess RJs".
Source: Email to members.
Looks like ALPA wants to ground 9E. Way to go guys.
How does grounding RJs >188 equate to grounding endeavor?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
05-26-2021 | 10:13 AM
#732
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
I’m not sure I agree. PWA 1.B.47.f is pretty clear: if a flow down at compass or another airline ceases to exist, the number of permissible 76-seat RJs in section [fill it in] is reduced by 35.
That’s clear. If this then that. This occurred, so that is now the case. There is no language for the resurrection of a flow down of which I’m aware. As a silly analogy, if I tell my daughter that if she fails to mow the lawn twice a week her curfew moves up an hour, and she mows once, her curfew is now moved. next week if she mows twice, I get to have that parenting moment where I say something fatherly like, “that would have served you well last week. Sorry. See you at 10.”
Or logic. If A then B implies if not B then not A. But not A tells you nothing. The converse is implied but the inverse isn’t.
Now if some negotiator’s notes demonstrate that the understanding was that rebuilding a dead flow down undid the 35-bird reduction, then I agree: somebody needs to go back to the writing part of the bar exam.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s clear. If this then that. This occurred, so that is now the case. There is no language for the resurrection of a flow down of which I’m aware. As a silly analogy, if I tell my daughter that if she fails to mow the lawn twice a week her curfew moves up an hour, and she mows once, her curfew is now moved. next week if she mows twice, I get to have that parenting moment where I say something fatherly like, “that would have served you well last week. Sorry. See you at 10.”
Or logic. If A then B implies if not B then not A. But not A tells you nothing. The converse is implied but the inverse isn’t.
Now if some negotiator’s notes demonstrate that the understanding was that rebuilding a dead flow down undid the 35-bird reduction, then I agree: somebody needs to go back to the writing part of the bar exam.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think the word cease is as clear-cut as it first seems. If it is that clear, why is anyone flying for Delta upset? Certainly it will be thrown out by an arbitratior if it's completely unambiguous.
I brought this up before, but there is such thing in contract law as latent ambiguity- that is to say what would normally be considered clear-cut, unambiguous language becomes ambiguous in light of the circumstances.
What are the circumstances? Well, Compass ceased to exist during the worst downturn in US aviation history. In light of that, was it reasonably beyond Delta's control to have the flow down continuously be available? Did the flow down cease to be available, considering there were no furloughed pilots? Is that enough to show some amount of latent ambiguity in the word "cease"? I know there are arguments against this - but those arguments don't matter, all a lawyer needs to do is demonstrate there is any latent ambiguity.
If that latent ambiguity is shown to exist, then intent rules. I think it's clear the intent: 35 planes for a flow down at a regional.
So it will all come down to if the word "cease" has any latent ambiguity. The RLA puts the burden of proof on the union, so DALPA must prove there is no latent ambiguity.
I give it a 50% chance either way. I feel like a settlement agreement may be the most likely outcome when something like this could go either way. Or maybe Delta knows what they are doing and their legal team has told them they will probably win.
05-26-2021 | 10:15 AM
#733
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
05-26-2021 | 10:15 AM
#734
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 313
Likes: 2
Delta Update:
ALPA will officially file a MEC grievance to halt the operation of RJs over 188, stating:
"Delta's management kept our most junior pilots on roller coaster ride for months, threatening furloughs while operating excess RJs".
Source: Email to members.
Looks like ALPA wants to ground 9E. Way to go guys.
ALPA will officially file a MEC grievance to halt the operation of RJs over 188, stating:
"Delta's management kept our most junior pilots on roller coaster ride for months, threatening furloughs while operating excess RJs".
Source: Email to members.
Looks like ALPA wants to ground 9E. Way to go guys.
05-26-2021 | 10:17 AM
#735
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 313
Likes: 2
05-26-2021 | 10:18 AM
#736
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
I don't think the word cease is as clear-cut as it first seems. If it is that clear, why is anyone flying for Delta upset? Certainly it will be thrown out by an arbitratior if it's completely unambiguous.
I brought this up before, but there is such thing in contract law as latent ambiguity- that is to say what would normally be considered clear-cut, unambiguous language becomes ambiguous in light of the circumstances.
What are the circumstances? Well, Compass ceased to exist during the worst downturn in US aviation history. In light of that, was it reasonably beyond Delta's control to have the flow down continuously be available? Did the flow down cease to be available, considering there were no furloughed pilots? Is that enough to show some amount of latent ambiguity in the word "cease"? I know there are arguments against this - but those arguments don't matter, all a lawyer needs to do is demonstrate there is any latent ambiguity.
If that latent ambiguity is shown to exist, then intent rules. I think it's clear the intent: 35 planes for a flow down at a regional.
So it will all come down to if the word "cease" has any latent ambiguity. The RLA puts the burden of proof on the union, so DALPA must prove there is no latent ambiguity.
I give it a 50% chance either way. I feel like a settlement agreement may be the most likely outcome when something like this could go either way. Or maybe Delta knows what they are doing and their legal team has told them they will probably win.
I brought this up before, but there is such thing in contract law as latent ambiguity- that is to say what would normally be considered clear-cut, unambiguous language becomes ambiguous in light of the circumstances.
What are the circumstances? Well, Compass ceased to exist during the worst downturn in US aviation history. In light of that, was it reasonably beyond Delta's control to have the flow down continuously be available? Did the flow down cease to be available, considering there were no furloughed pilots? Is that enough to show some amount of latent ambiguity in the word "cease"? I know there are arguments against this - but those arguments don't matter, all a lawyer needs to do is demonstrate there is any latent ambiguity.
If that latent ambiguity is shown to exist, then intent rules. I think it's clear the intent: 35 planes for a flow down at a regional.
So it will all come down to if the word "cease" has any latent ambiguity. The RLA puts the burden of proof on the union, so DALPA must prove there is no latent ambiguity.
I give it a 50% chance either way. I feel like a settlement agreement may be the most likely outcome when something like this could go either way. Or maybe Delta knows what they are doing and their legal team has told them they will probably win.
05-26-2021 | 10:20 AM
#737
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
05-26-2021 | 10:20 AM
#738
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 313
Likes: 2
I don't think the word cease is as clear-cut as it first seems. If it is that clear, why is anyone flying for Delta upset? Certainly it will be thrown out by an arbitratior if it's completely unambiguous.
I brought this up before, but there is such thing in contract law as latent ambiguity- that is to say what would normally be considered clear-cut, unambiguous language becomes ambiguous in light of the circumstances.
What are the circumstances? Well, Compass ceased to exist during the worst downturn in US aviation history. In light of that, was it reasonably beyond Delta's control to have the flow down continuously be available? Did the flow down cease to be available, considering there were no furloughed pilots? Is that enough to show some amount of latent ambiguity in the word "cease"? I know there are arguments against this - but those arguments don't matter, all a lawyer needs to do is demonstrate there is any latent ambiguity.
If that latent ambiguity is shown to exist, then intent rules. I think it's clear the intent: 35 planes for a flow down at a regional.
So it will all come down to if the word "cease" has any latent ambiguity. The RLA puts the burden of proof on the union, so DALPA must prove there is no latent ambiguity.
I give it a 50% chance either way. I feel like a settlement agreement may be the most likely outcome when something like this could go either way. Or maybe Delta knows what they are doing and their legal team has told them they will probably win.
I brought this up before, but there is such thing in contract law as latent ambiguity- that is to say what would normally be considered clear-cut, unambiguous language becomes ambiguous in light of the circumstances.
What are the circumstances? Well, Compass ceased to exist during the worst downturn in US aviation history. In light of that, was it reasonably beyond Delta's control to have the flow down continuously be available? Did the flow down cease to be available, considering there were no furloughed pilots? Is that enough to show some amount of latent ambiguity in the word "cease"? I know there are arguments against this - but those arguments don't matter, all a lawyer needs to do is demonstrate there is any latent ambiguity.
If that latent ambiguity is shown to exist, then intent rules. I think it's clear the intent: 35 planes for a flow down at a regional.
So it will all come down to if the word "cease" has any latent ambiguity. The RLA puts the burden of proof on the union, so DALPA must prove there is no latent ambiguity.
I give it a 50% chance either way. I feel like a settlement agreement may be the most likely outcome when something like this could go either way. Or maybe Delta knows what they are doing and their legal team has told them they will probably win.
05-26-2021 | 10:22 AM
#740
Trimming my beard
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
35 Large RJs coming back?
“RJs over 188”. The network has 188ish operating right now. If I understand it correctly, the 35 we are talking about is above 188. So in DALPA’s email “RJs over 188” refers to these 35 only.
Nobody was talking about parking Endeavor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
