|
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1425571)
Denny,
Here is ALPA's Counsel, Mr. Bill Roberts describing "Delta Flying" in his deposition:Mr. Robert's is pretty clear then that he believes flying for Delta is Delta flying and is only permitted under the Delta pilot working agreement. There is no discussion of Comair (in this case) being able to subcontract within Delta's contract, as ALPA would not authorize ASA or Comair to do so back then. Now, despite claims to the contrary, Pinnacle has an agreement which restricts Delta flying. Pinnacle's agreement literally supercedes ours by duration. Ironically, my guess is Wychor studied and learned from JC Lawson, Bob Arnold and the early (pre litigation) RJDC playbook and used his position to actually pull off what JC Lawson and Bob Arnold were trying to accomplish; scope which bound Delta Air Lines. Be interesting to hear Duane Woerth's opinion on the change. My opinion is that the agreement does not restrict our flying because we have already outsourced more flying than this agreement covers. It seems to me all this agreement is doing is assuring Pinnacle of a certain percentage of flying that was already outsourced. I agree it is scope that Delta Management is bound by but it is scoping flying we, the Delta Pilots, have allowed to be outsourced. Yes the agreement is longer than our current PWA. So what. Everything is negotiable in the next section 6. Maybe some kind of sunset can be negotiated then..... I don't know, just spitballin' there.. This discussion has veered tangentially from where it should be. All I asked in the beginning was what section of our contract was changed without being negotiated via DALPA? No one can answer that. The other question was what section/contract language has been violated? No one can answer that either. All the other stuff is good discussion and I agree that it could bite us later but where is the clear cut change and violation? Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1425629)
All I asked in the beginning was what section of our contract was changed without being negotiated via DALPA? No one can answer that. The other question was what section/contract language has been violated? No one can answer that either.
Denny Read this post, it answers your question, again. http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...ml#post1425559 Number 132313 on this forum |
Originally Posted by Free Mason
(Post 1425600)
30. ALPA’s first goal is to grow membership and associated dues income. Representing current members is secondary.
Wrong on all accounts, but getting APA and SWAPA to ALPA would help ALPA members. After all didn't SWAPA prosper with PFT and no pensions. Think ALPA would have promoted that? I don't think ALPA would have a single problem with PFT if they could win SWA. Those guys would be a freaking goldmine. In fact, in if I was representing an ALPA pilot group merging with SWA, I'd trip over myself to get SWA to jo... oh wait... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C6hViqbXNX.../chihuahua.jpg |
Considering politics in that region, it seems impossible to forecast what alliances with Korean or Chinese "partners" will stand the test of time. It seems premature to dismantle a hub like NRT. If we just enforced our contract, for a change, it seems that the company might have to downgauge as appropriate, AND continue the evolutionary path towards direct Asia flights, possibly with smaller, longer-range aircraft, i.e. some 737-900 E's and A321's instead of 757 intra-theater, less 747 feed and more A330's to NRT, a more A330-200's overflights, instead of 777's and 747's. Who knows what the company might do if left to work theough the various constraints? We don't, because we're already suggesting there is an easy button they can just push.
DPA, for a change, is actually right, even though they typically fumbled the execution, and their numbers on daily departures are off by a factor of 30. So we have an apathetic group in the middle, overeager implementers and premature enablers on one side, and the grotesquely lobotomied DPA on the other. What could possibly go wrong? |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1425630)
Which version of Mr. Roberts do you agree with, then (as outlined in his deposition), or now (that "Delta Flying" does not include what we have permitted) ?
Read this post, it answers your question, again. http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...ml#post1425559 Number 132313 on this forum That's how dense I am and why I try to avoid getting into these discussions. Youse guys are much smarter than I am. No sarcasm, just truth. I know my limitations and try to abide by them. Denny |
Originally Posted by Free Mason
(Post 1425600)
33. Jobs promised in last contract. No hiring for all of 2012 or 2013. 757s to be parked and 737s will replace..…pay cut.
Yep we did not hire. Sucks, but how do you force a company to hire when you are overstaffed and the pilot group overwhelmingly approved work rule efficiencies? Ever think this is what the pilots said to do in the survey? Made me wonder too. If, the almighty "senior pilot" straw men said they don't need so many vacations why won't you allow me to sell them back and pick up flying? Whose job is it to throw cold water on that for the sake of the pilot group? Maybe the pilot group shouldn't be allowed to vote on things that improve productivity because maybe those kinds of things should never make it to a vote? The one thing that should be remembered about may be hiring in 2012 if we voted in the TA, it came out after the TA was dropped in our laps. It was a sales job. And it worked. We had people who were in favor of the TA pointing to that as another reason to vote for it while those who were against the TA said "sales job." On that account, who turned out to be right? I'm guessing the people who said it was b.s. and we wouldn't hire. |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1425646)
Bar I admit it, I'm dense. I've read that post time and again and no where can I see where it says section 1 paragraph __ was violated or where it says Section __ Paragraph __ was changed because of the Pinnacle Agreement.
That's how dense I am and why I try to avoid getting into these discussions. Youse guys are much smarter than I am. No sarcasm, just truth. I know my limitations and try to abide by them. Denny Further, we have maintained reciprocal agreements which give Delta pilots favored hiring opportunities as a job protection device (bilateral flow concept). Pinnacle did not honor this reciprocal agreement. |
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 1425591)
I don't have too much of a problem with them taking some of the NRT slots and using them at HND. However, I don't think we should count the overflights, those should be gravy. Think of the lost hub in Frankfort, for example. Point to point from the US comes and goes as markets advance and decline. But, if you have a hub you can use it when markets decline.
Simply stated, don't you wish we had someplace in Europe to funnel people into and then have us fly them onward.......like we do in NRT now? Don't give up NRT just because you think point to point from the US is forever. Signed, An Old Asia Hand This is assuming NRT remains viable, of course. Not a given... |
BTW, I do kind of believe the often heard [from DALPA and I have the emails to show it] "well that's what senior pilots wanted" is nothing but a low grade straw man argument. And the best part is when they point to surveys you never see the results of.
I think the DPA should put it's money into surveys that are published. |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1425561)
Bar,
Great post...as per usual. Leine, I understand your point. But here's my problem. I think (key word: "think") DALPA's scope giveaway is designed to meet the "spirit" (but not the "word") of the contractual scope terms. So DALPA took the magnanimous position of saying okay... Where has the reverse happened? When has Delta honored the "spirit" of the contract as opposed to the written word? Did they do that with the Frontier/Republic scope issue? How about with the interpretation of the number of permitted 70+ seat RJ's? Seriously. My impression, based on many years at Delta, is management will hide behind contractual language when it's in their interest, and say "Gee fellas...this is what the contract means to us..." when it's convenient. This was a (wasted) opportunity to hold managements feet to the fire and, from my perspective, it was squandered (again). What's the point of having a contract if it's not going to be followed, and what's the point of paying dues to an organization to negotiate and uphold a contract if they are going to (continually) turn the other cheek? I appreciate your skepticism. I felt the same way at first glance. I have spoken face-to-face with reps from 3 different bases and I have confidence that they are aware of what is at stake. As reps they have info that I'm not privy to, and have made their best decision (to grant temp relief) on our behalf. To be honest that's all I have to go on, but for me that's enough. I respect each of these men personally and have no reason to believe I'm being sandbagged. To top it off, if we don't find some sort of scope amendment by the fall that suits our purpose, things snap back to the way they were. I'm aware that some think that we're giving them a "free" summer, but I really don't think management is willing to foul the swimming pool over something this (relatively) small. Time will tell, but I trust that our reps are taking a calculated risk to allow us to win-win. I share your concern, but am optimistic that we're looking at a potential improvement going forward. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:13 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands