Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-23-2012 | 07:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
Labor Disputes
a. There will be no increased use of the DL code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the cooling off period) by AF, KLM, or AZ during a cooling off period (under 7 Section 5, 6, or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots. In the event of a lawful primary strike against Delta by the Delta pilots, the DL code will not be used by AF, KLM, or AZ at any time during such strike.
a. There will be no increased use of the DL code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the cooling off period) by AF, KLM, or AZ during a cooling off period (under 7 Section 5, 6, or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots. In the event of a lawful primary strike against Delta by the Delta pilots, the DL code will not be used by AF, KLM, or AZ at any time during such strike.
05-23-2012 | 07:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
One really has to admire the GALL of the NC to proclaim in their Notepad that they've eliminated the company's Sick Leave Monitoring Program, when in fact, it's been replaced with a far more onerous one. Take a close look at Section 14 F.
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
Basically, under this modification, the company has CARTE BLANCHE to persecute ANYONE who uses ANY sick leave.
And our union flat out, bald faced LIED TO US about it.
Is anybody comfortable with this???
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
Basically, under this modification, the company has CARTE BLANCHE to persecute ANYONE who uses ANY sick leave.
And our union flat out, bald faced LIED TO US about it.
Is anybody comfortable with this???
05-23-2012 | 07:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
05-23-2012 | 07:49 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
One really has to admire the GALL of the NC to proclaim in their Notepad that they've eliminated the company's Sick Leave Monitoring Program, when in fact, it's been replaced with a far more onerous one. Take a close look at Section 14 F.
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
Basically, under this modification, the company has CARTE BLANCHE to persecute ANYONE who uses ANY sick leave.
And our union flat out, bald faced LIED TO US about it.
Is anybody comfortable with this???
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
Basically, under this modification, the company has CARTE BLANCHE to persecute ANYONE who uses ANY sick leave.
And our union flat out, bald faced LIED TO US about it.
Is anybody comfortable with this???
Well I believe under our current contract the company may require a verification of sickness for an occurrence of 7 days. Also, the company IS currently allowed to ask for release of our medical records. But under the new TA, they may ask for the records ONLY if you're REQUIRED to verify your sickness. I really believe the ONLY thing that has changed is the 100 hour trigger, and it appears to me ALPA actually negotiated more protection for us. I'll keep looking.
05-23-2012 | 07:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Likes: 0
One really has to admire the GALL of the NC to proclaim in their Notepad that they've eliminated the company's Sick Leave Monitoring Program, when in fact, it's been replaced with a far more onerous one. Take a close look at Section 14 F.
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
You are now REQUIRED to provide a DOCTORS NOTE for any sick leave usage over 100 hours per year, or an occurance of 15 days, or ANY "INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" that give the company "GOOD FAITH" reason to REQUIRE YOU to provide a note from a doctor, and also provide them with authorization to LOOK AT YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS.
Take a look at our current Section 14.F and G. The company presently has the right to do what you suggest. With the TA their rights are restricted, plus they have to pay for any required verification. For review:
15>7
100>anytime they wanted to.
100%>75%
05-23-2012 | 07:57 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Labor Disputes
a. There will be no increased use of the DL code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the cooling off period) by AF, KLM, or AZ during a cooling off period (under 7 Section 5, 6, or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots. In the event of a lawful primary strike against Delta by the Delta pilots, the DL code will not be used by AF, KLM, or AZ at any time during such strike.
b. There will be no payments other than those payments occurring during the ordinary course of business to Delta from AF, KLM, or AZ during a cooling off period (under Section 5, 6, or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots or a lawful strike by Delta pilots.
c. No airman trained by AF, KLM, or AZ in the prior 12 months will be hired to serve as a Delta pilot during a cooling off period (under Section 5, 6 or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots or a lawful strike by Delta pilots.
d. There will be no increased use of the AF, KLM, and/or AZ code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the strike) by Delta during a lawful strike by the AF, KLM, and/or AZ airmen.
e. Without the consent of the Delta MEC Chairman, there will be no increase of gauge on any Delta route which carries the AF, KLM, and/or AZ code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the strike) during a lawful strike by the AF, KLM, and/or AZ airmen.
9. Definitions for the terms EASK, acquisition and competing operations contained in the 27 AF/KL/AZ JV agreement that are incorporated by reference into this LOAthe PWA shall 28 not be amended without the consent of the Delta MEC. The baseline EASK allocation, 29 the Bundle 1 definition and the competing operations capacity limit may not be changed 30 except as provided in Section 1 P. 4. and Section 1 P. 7., respectively.
a. There will be no increased use of the DL code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the cooling off period) by AF, KLM, or AZ during a cooling off period (under 7 Section 5, 6, or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots. In the event of a lawful primary strike against Delta by the Delta pilots, the DL code will not be used by AF, KLM, or AZ at any time during such strike.
b. There will be no payments other than those payments occurring during the ordinary course of business to Delta from AF, KLM, or AZ during a cooling off period (under Section 5, 6, or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots or a lawful strike by Delta pilots.
c. No airman trained by AF, KLM, or AZ in the prior 12 months will be hired to serve as a Delta pilot during a cooling off period (under Section 5, 6 or 10 of the Railway Labor Act) applicable to Delta pilots or a lawful strike by Delta pilots.
d. There will be no increased use of the AF, KLM, and/or AZ code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the strike) by Delta during a lawful strike by the AF, KLM, and/or AZ airmen.
e. Without the consent of the Delta MEC Chairman, there will be no increase of gauge on any Delta route which carries the AF, KLM, and/or AZ code (i.e., an increase over and above that which was loaded in Deltamatic in the 90-day period prior to the commencement of the strike) during a lawful strike by the AF, KLM, and/or AZ airmen.
9. Definitions for the terms EASK, acquisition and competing operations contained in the 27 AF/KL/AZ JV agreement that are incorporated by reference into this LOAthe PWA shall 28 not be amended without the consent of the Delta MEC. The baseline EASK allocation, 29 the Bundle 1 definition and the competing operations capacity limit may not be changed 30 except as provided in Section 1 P. 4. and Section 1 P. 7., respectively.
Again, the language itself is not illegal, the language itself is legally unenforceable. Even an ALPA lawyer knows this, which makes it worse because it means they know it was a throw away line to make pilots happy, and make management just smile.
Carl
05-23-2012 | 07:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
One thing you guys must at least consider with DCI, we need the feed and 117 seat jets cannot do all of it. The Cseries could, but it is a few years to market. For the near term(3-8 yrs) we need lift or we will lack a domestic feed network and go the way of Pan Am.
No one likes the RJ sales, no one, but as Sink said, there is a broader picture on this issue. There are many really good items in Section 1. I also agree that the costing of them is probably not in our favor. Out of all of the fears that many had, some came true in section 1, but so did the quids.
In the rest of the agreement, I have not talked to one pilot that has their expectations met, even with the expectation RA created with a expedited process and an agreement prior the amendable date. It comes down to if you are OK with the work rule and compensation scheme changes in the current TA or not.
No one likes the RJ sales, no one, but as Sink said, there is a broader picture on this issue. There are many really good items in Section 1. I also agree that the costing of them is probably not in our favor. Out of all of the fears that many had, some came true in section 1, but so did the quids.
In the rest of the agreement, I have not talked to one pilot that has their expectations met, even with the expectation RA created with a expedited process and an agreement prior the amendable date. It comes down to if you are OK with the work rule and compensation scheme changes in the current TA or not.
One thing my union and my company should consider is that Delta pilots are more than capable of flying 70 or 76 seat Rj's.
Ain't no shame in our game. My first day as a major airline captain, I flew a 75 seat DC-9-10 from DTW to MDW, and I was damn proud.
Someone needs to put the memo out to the higher ups that we want to fly those airplanes. Delta pilots don't discriminate against any lift carrying airplanes, big or small.
05-23-2012 | 08:00 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I agree.
Well we're playing with semantics here. I guess a better way to phrase this, if we increase the outsourced 51-76 seat fleet from 255 jets to 325 jets... will that be the last time it's raised?
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
05-23-2012 | 08:03 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
I agree.
Well we're playing with semantics here. I guess a better way to phrase this, if we increase the outsourced 51-76 seat fleet from 255 jets to 325 jets... will that be the last time it's raised?
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
Well we're playing with semantics here. I guess a better way to phrase this, if we increase the outsourced 51-76 seat fleet from 255 jets to 325 jets... will that be the last time it's raised?
I thought 255 would be the last time but obviously it isn't. So if we increase to 325, how long until we're asked to increase to 400? And then how long until we hear these 76 seat jets are killing us, can you give us some relief and agree on paper to allow us to outsource larger jets right now in exchange for a pinky promise to give you more somethings someday?
Or better yet, you know these ratios are making all of these large RJs already on property unprofitable. So we know you guys are getting killed by Section [ ] so let's agree to exchange a better ratio for us for some relief for you. Deal?
Sorry FTB. I just needed some fun. It's been so tense here lately, that I just couldn't resist.
05-23-2012 | 08:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
