|
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196544)
3. The jury is WAY OUT on the whole prospect of whether any attempt by our union to force another union to lose jobs based on a contract that they didn't sign, would even be legal. It would certainly produce a DFR against ALPA by the agrieved RJ airline, and could well produce a lawsuit against DAL for violating the Railway Labor Act. This is competely unsettled law here. None of us are in any position to feel confident about the language that appears to force ANOTHER AIRLINE to reduce their RJ count or the block hours they fly those RJ's.
|
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1196638)
Why are we allowing DALPA to compare this contract in terms of the 2008 bankruptcy-ish rates?
What is so magical about 2008? I'd expect the company to choose that year. But if "our" union is picking a year to benchmark, why on earth not pick C2K? |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 1196653)
Because our current contract started then. We merged then. It was our last comprehensive negotiation.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196544)
3. The jury is WAY OUT on the whole prospect of whether any attempt by our union to force another union to lose jobs based on a contract that they didn't sign, would even be legal. It would certainly produce a DFR against ALPA by the agrieved RJ airline, and could well produce a lawsuit against DAL for violating the Railway Labor Act. This is competely unsettled law here. None of us are in any position to feel confident about the language that appears to force ANOTHER AIRLINE to reduce their RJ count or the block hours they fly those RJ's.
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 1196652)
We need to bookmark this one for when you resurrect the DPA's claim that ALPA kowtows to the Regionals. The TA shows that each MEC negotiates their own Scope, with the Regionals having no say in those of the mainlines.
There is nothing in your post that responds to what I reposted above. It appears you're attempting to rekindle a DPA discussion to keep from actually discussing my post. Carl |
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1196662)
Are you union or management?
|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1196668)
That ones too easy, bacon. I'll let it slide.
|
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1196662)
Are you union or management?
|
Originally Posted by PropNWA
(Post 1196133)
There's plenty to complain about in this deal but the snapshot and ratios is not one of them. Clearly, some people don't understand what a ratio is. If the company did decide to park a bunch of mainline aircraft prior to the first snapshot, it would only increase the number of DCI aircraft that would have to be parked to be in compliance with the ratio...
What prevents Delta from flying the pants off the new 900s, going out of compliance for 18 months, then parking dozens of worn-out 50s in 2014 to get back in compliance? Who determines which aircraft get parked? Who determines which regional gets parked? If the TA measures block hours instead of RASM, remember that one block hour in a 50 = one block hour in a EMB175/CRJ900. Does the TA say DCI must park some ratio of 50s to 90s? |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196667)
This isn't about DPA anymore. We couldn't get enough cards before you exchanged openers. It's done.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196667)
There is nothing in your post that responds to what I reposted above.
I'm not trying to be cute here by suggesting that pilots won't be furloughed as a result of this shift in flying, but your inference that it's perilous legal grounds is unfounded. Had our TA changed the staffing formula sections of PCL, CMR, etc contracts, you might have a point. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 1196693)
Maybe. I'll hang onto this one in case the cheese slides off your cracker again, and you hook back up with Timmy and Seham.
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 1196693)
Fair enough. As plenty of people have pointed out, the flying belongs to the airline that contracts with other operators to fly. They pay PCL by the hour to fly Delta passengers, who buy Delta tickets, to fly to cities in Delta's network. Nothing in the TA changes that arrangement. PCL will still operate. They will probably operate fewer RJ's because of the restrictions in the TA, but the number of pilots they employ to do so is not determined by the Delta TA. If they choose to carry a surplus of pilots, as we have done in the past, then PCL won't furlough anybody.
I'm not trying to be cute here by suggesting that pilots won't be furloughed as a result of this shift in flying, but your inference that it's perilous legal grounds is unfounded. Had our TA changed the staffing formula sections of PCL, CMR, etc contracts, you might have a point. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:05 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands