Wasnt the guy making deals in SLC a known problem and also senior? They one that they put on the rotation that he called and made a deal?

 

Exactly. Very underreported point. This MOU enshrines some genuine handcuffs on the company heretofore not available to us.

Agree 100%.

Yep, and we have several junior pilots whining all over Facebook about senior stealing “their“ IA. And how the Company needs to follow the contract And give it to Junior. Which is incredibly ironic, given the way IA’s are actually implemented for the last decade has nothing to do with the contract at all.

Restoring seniority to the free-for-all is a win.

As is the permanent QHCP certification, and a complete lack of a verification window for at least three or four more months, and backdated to June/July. That alone is going to almost wipe out all current verification requirements. We also are going to have an audited 23M7 trail going back two full years. I don’t think the company would have agreed to that had we not had them over a barrel. I feel fairly confident we had to have copies of audio tapes of crew schedulers openly and willfully violating the contract. And when we are grieving a lack of good faith resolution to a prior grievance, that kind of thing does not play well with the system board. At all. In other words, the company got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and we got some solid gains as a result.

 

It was an MSP pilot making a deal with Crew Scheduling, and was "awarded" SLC rotation 0672 on 28 June. Yes, the remarks said he called and made a deal (paraphrasing icrew verbage).

A5S

Edit: I don't remember his seniority number, but he was NOT junior.

 

Apart from the “re-establishing order of seniority for call-outs”

what gains do you see?

And id argue all we did was bring them into compliance for a violation they were committing.

Was there harm to us? Sure. But they were acting illegally as far as the contract was concerned

we should have brought them to a grievance for violating the contract.

Then we give them a settlement on the already settled grievance? C’mon we are just adding insult to injury

the Company is beating us over the head over and over and just providing a band-aid and a hollow apology before they start beating again next week

qhcp is not a win; this is something we already had a settlement for

and you who think CS going to magically comply with the contract now are out of your mind - what’s a SIL? It’s not a violation til an arbitrator says so, etc etc

stop being so afraid and let’s tell ALPA to grow a set and let’s fight back

 

Expressly prohibiting skipping pilots within a step. Requiring the identification of a harmed pilot before skipping steps. It locks them out from moving on until they identify the pilot. Additional 100% penalty for using IA free for all.

In the vast majority of cases, there were no violations. Under emergency coverage, they can pretty much do whatever they want. The example I was given, if a pilot calls out sick in Maui, they can call every qualified pilot in Maui to operate it back as long as the proper pilot was paid.

 

What a joke! A provision to prevent abuse of the contract will be abused. Can we grieve a grievance? Double secret grievance?
I really don’t GAS as I don’t GS, IA and hardly ever WS. It’s easy enough to block their calls when I’m home. I just find it humorous that once again it’s up to Delta IT to determine when our contract will be enforceable.

 

I don't know man. Call your reps and ask them

 

Do we know how long for them to update the sick lookback numbers?

 

It will be just long enough for us to get to section 6 negotiations. Then it becomes the impasse tool for the company to drag out negotiations until they have a more favorable environment while stagnating wages.

 

what about this mou makes that more likely or useful as an impasse tool than the pre-qs system?