GucciBoy

Why don’t you go ahead and quote that “pretty clear” language so we can all read it. Is it clearer than the language that says LOA 9 is an agreement between four parties, one of which ain’t be existin’ any more?

SparkySmith

Where do you see the clear language that DAL can substitute another carrier once the flow down goes away? My understanding is:
-the 35 RJs are mentioned in one place, DAL PWA 1.B.47.f exemption two.
-that section says “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.” That’s a procedure to reduce the 76-seat RJ limit.
-since the provisions of LOA 9 ceased to be available, the number of 76-seaters was reduced. It happened and is complete from a contractual standpoint.
-I am aware of no provision to increase the number of 76-seaters, by 35 or any other quantity, now that there is a flow down.

What did I miss? Where is the clear language allowing the reestablishment of a flow down to increase the limit on RJs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PT6flyer

After reading into arbitration cases it seems that an arbitrator can find a violation and then offer a remedy. It would seem that a not likely remedy would be the grounding of 35 large RJs when Delta is in recovery mode. Since you guys are in section 6 but most likely not pursuing negotiations (Since Delta is not profitable), what would be the most plausible remedy? I would bet it's to just keep the current LOA 9 deal until a date set in the future. I would just like to point out again, how are the Delta pilots harmed in this? Delta and DALPA fully agreed to LOA 9 at one time, which this LOA offers "either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft".

CBreezy

A remedy to operating outside of allowed scope would not be to make them operate under their already agreed to terms? So what, then we file ANOTHER grievance for him to tell us the same thing?

PT6flyer

The big thing here is finding a violation. Since Endeavor is now taking stepping in as "Compass" withinside LOA # 9, did a legal violation occurred? Since LOA # 9 has verbiage that states "either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier", then Endeavor would be classified as "another carrier" Making the case that when Compass was terminated, that LOA # 9 was terminated forever might be a hard push. Since LOA # 9 is now available at a new carrier, the Delta Pilots have received no harm since they now have a flow back to this new carrier. Also, pointing out that when the Delta pilots lost LOA # 9, they were harmed, this harm was known about and negotiated for by grounding 35 RJs. They are no longer harmed since LOA # 9 is a living and breathing document again.

PT6flyer

This is all IMO stuff. But Delta now complies with the terms of LOA # 9. They gave Delta Pilots a flow back for the keys to 35 airplanes. It's hard to point to a clear violation since LOA # 9 does allow for another airline to take on flow-back language.

Trip7

Can you quote the contract language that states its a four party agreement? I can't find it

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Drum

???
How did you deduce that outcome

CBreezy

Sure:

This Letter of Agreement is made and entered into under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, between Delta Air Lines, Inc. ( “Delta”) and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (the “Association”) and Compass Airlines, Inc. (“Compass”) and the Association. WHEREAS Delta and the Association are parties to a collective bargaining agreement setting forth the rates of pay, rules and working conditions for Delta pilots (“Delta Pilot Working Agreement” or “Delta PWA”) effective July 1, 2012, and
WHEREAS Compass and the Association are parties to a collective bargaining agreement setting forth the rates of pay, rules and working conditions for Compass pilots (“Compass Collective Bargaining Agreement” or “Compass CBA”) effective July 26,45 2007

FangsF15

Thanks for parroting precisely managements position.

A few problems however. First the actual language (emphasis added)

The “provisions” ceased to be available. Period. It didn’t say, “So long as the provisions are not available”. It says, ‘If they cease, then this happens’… When the pilot group needed them, they were not available because them ceased to be available. But for Uncle Sugar’s 3 cash infusions, we absolutely would have had pilots harmed.

Also, this was a 4-way agreement. Was. Endeavor is not a party to it. There is no mechanism to ‘undo’ the ceasing.