35 Large RJs coming back?
05-26-2021 | 12:13 PM
#761
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
Is there a precedent for retroactively claiming force majeure?
05-26-2021 | 12:17 PM
#763
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
You might be right, but Delta doesn't need a strong case...it just needs any case, since the burden is on DALPA. DALPA must prove that it was unreasonable to interpret the contract in any other way given the circumstances and that Delta was at fault for doing so (I.e, it was not beyond their financial or operational control).
That said, I'm not for the give in scope...but I certainly do want contractual progression to Delta.
That said, I'm not for the give in scope...but I certainly do want contractual progression to Delta.
05-26-2021 | 12:21 PM
#764
New Hire
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Contract law is very grey. The one problem Delta will have is they knew Compass was closing before the pandemic, yet they never worked on a flow down agreement with another carrier. Then the pandemic hit. Instead of creating a new flow down, they decided to send out warn notices and then furlough notices. This is acting in bad faith.
The union called them out on the over utilization in violation of scope this fall. They know they are going to lose this case in arbitration. Now that they need the aircraft due to recovery, they have come up with a plan flow up/down with EDV. The questions Delta will have to answer is why now and not last year to create a flow down. Why did they send out furlough notices and not create a flow down agreement first.
There is also a problem with the 35 aircraft from Compass; they are over the contracted allowable MTOW in the PWA. Compass could operate the heavier aircraft on their certificate, but I don't think this is permitted per the PWA now that Compass does not exist.
The problem with the RLA and arbitration is they do favor the corporations due to commerce. I guess we will see.
The union called them out on the over utilization in violation of scope this fall. They know they are going to lose this case in arbitration. Now that they need the aircraft due to recovery, they have come up with a plan flow up/down with EDV. The questions Delta will have to answer is why now and not last year to create a flow down. Why did they send out furlough notices and not create a flow down agreement first.
There is also a problem with the 35 aircraft from Compass; they are over the contracted allowable MTOW in the PWA. Compass could operate the heavier aircraft on their certificate, but I don't think this is permitted per the PWA now that Compass does not exist.
The problem with the RLA and arbitration is they do favor the corporations due to commerce. I guess we will see.
05-26-2021 | 12:25 PM
#765
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
No, no. DALPA already caved on scope eleven years ago when LOA 9 was signed. Now you want 9e to stuff that genie back in the bottle.
If Delta pilots want this scope clawed back -that they gave away in the first place- it’s going to take more than a whiney little grievance. Delta pilots need to come up with a plan, with an actual solution that has Delta pilots flying Delta planes.
but it’s easier to throw rocks at 9e.
If Delta pilots want this scope clawed back -that they gave away in the first place- it’s going to take more than a whiney little grievance. Delta pilots need to come up with a plan, with an actual solution that has Delta pilots flying Delta planes.
but it’s easier to throw rocks at 9e.
05-26-2021 | 12:26 PM
#766
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 504
Likes: 12
From: 757/767
I don't think you understand what force majeure is.
05-26-2021 | 12:27 PM
#767
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 521
Likes: 25
From: 320
.....
“In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 47. e.will be reduced by 35.”
No. No ambiguity here...
No. No ambiguity here...
05-26-2021 | 12:31 PM
#768
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
“In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 47. e.will be reduced by 35.”
No. No ambiguity here...
No. No ambiguity here...
05-26-2021 | 12:43 PM
#769
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Amazing how desperate some of you are for flow, JFC.
So let me guess, you want DALPA to give in to scope relief and negotiate something in return, which then allows for 35 RJ’s to fly permanently? Which of course, would allow you to flow, permanently.
You most certainly are for give in scope as long as it generates contractual progression for you.
It’s not very difficult to read through the incentives of a 9E poster on a DL thread.
So let me guess, you want DALPA to give in to scope relief and negotiate something in return, which then allows for 35 RJ’s to fly permanently? Which of course, would allow you to flow, permanently.
You most certainly are for give in scope as long as it generates contractual progression for you.
It’s not very difficult to read through the incentives of a 9E poster on a DL thread.
05-26-2021 | 12:48 PM
#770
Banned
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 2
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
