Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1452368)

In case anyone had any illusions about whether Delta takes full advantage of all contract changes in their favor...
Check out alllll the redeyes that used to report at 2230, which now report at 23:30 to avoid the extra day of pay. Not a single one of these existed before...

When folks say, "Delta won't take advantage of ALV+15, that's just for international...", look at this picture.
This is a PERFECT image of what Delta WILL do when our contract allows it-- take 100% full advantage of it.

Here's 18 trips in open time, all of them there because how incredibly heinous they pay, that are called "2 day trips" but are really 3 days, or are called "3 day" but are really 4 days, because you report the day prior. And with 50%ish commuters, that means a FULL day of efforts uncompensated really, because flying a redeye at 0030 means you DIDN'T do whatever you wanted the day prior to this trip. Of course all the redeyes in my category have been rebuilt to depart just late enough to not pay for each day....
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/me...1-photo-56.jpg

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1452387)

The only solution to a scope violation is forcing them to comply with the language they signed. Anything else is justifying the loss of our jobs by accepting some quid. This is exactly what the young folks that come on here mean when they say we're selling our futures for money. In the Atlantic, they have three choices: Force the JV partners to fly less, fly Delta more, or cancel the JV. I'd prefer a cancel. In the pacific, they have two choices: keep the exact same number of flights to NRT, or cancel the JV. I'd prefer a cancel. No amount of money or "other improvements" can EVER be tied to our scope. We can't sell our jobs.

Think of it like fuel. Say fuel allocations were totally government controlled. And we had a signed deal allocating us X number of gallons per year. Then we get to December and we're told our remaining allocation has been forever given to Southwest. We sue the government, and they offer us a monetary settlement equal to the amount of fuel we were going to be shorted forever. Do you take the money? Or do you realize that without fuel, we have no airline. And if they do this 12 more times, we might have 12 more checks, but no more fuel to operate. The only answer is to accept no settlement other than our full allocation of fuel...because fuel is an airline's life blood. Likewise, jobs are a union's life blood.

Sorry for the rant. Does that make any sense?

Carl

Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1452368)

In case anyone had any illusions about whether Delta takes full advantage of all contract changes in their favor...
Check out alllll the redeyes that used to report at 2230, which now report at 23:30 to avoid the extra day of pay. Not a single one of these existed before...

When folks say, "Delta won't take advantage of ALV+15, that's just for international...", look at this picture.
This is a PERFECT image of what Delta WILL do when our contract allows it-- take 100% full advantage of it.

Here's 18 trips in open time, all of them there because how incredibly heinous they pay, that are called "2 day trips" but are really 3 days, or are called "3 day" but are really 4 days, because you report the day prior. And with 50%ish commuters, that means a FULL day of efforts uncompensated really, because flying a redeye at 0030 means you DIDN'T do whatever you wanted the day prior to this trip. Of course all the redeyes in my category have been rebuilt to depart just late enough to not pay for each day....
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/me...1-photo-56.jpg

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1452390)

I know you're in SLC Roadkill, but welcome to the world that is LAX. We've been *****ing about this for years. And you are right, the company knows exactly what they are doing.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1452399)

Not saying that this is not happening, but I believe even if they kept the report at 2230 it would not matter - the exclusion period starts at 2200.

From a C-2012 Bulletin:

Introduced a new rig – Average Daily Guarantee
– Provides for a daily average of 4:30 to a rotation. This addresses the issue, for example, of a three day trip with only two duty periods.
– Exception for rotations that have a duty period reporting after 2200 or releasing prior to 0200 pilot base time



Scoop

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1452405)

hey is the 717 included with the 88/90 in getting tablets?

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1452395)

Oh, absolutely we should force them to comply with all the provisions of our contract. I was not advocating to sell scope in the slightest. I guess I wasn't clear. I will try to be more so.

Take the current situation with the TAJV. Assume this (I know it will be hard Carl:)): The noncompliance is grieved and won and the company is forced to comply. If money is not an adequate compensation for the violation............what is? That was the point of my question.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1452441)

In my previous post, I used the term Atlantic to mean the TAJV. This is the JV that will be way out of compliance by the measuring date of March 2014. If we win the grievance (and there's no way to lose unless DALPA purposely loses it for strategic reasons), then forcing them to comply means just that. They can comply in three ways: 1. Fly more Atlantic stuff with Delta pilots. 2. Force the partners to reduce their Atlantic flying. 3. Cancel the JV. There is no fourth choice of compensatory damages. Comply means comply. If we allow anything else, we set the precedence of rendering ratios and percentages meaningless in any JV or code share.

What am I missing here Denny?

Carl

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1452475)

You're not missing anything. (If anything, I'm the one missing something!:)) I'm assuming we will win any grievance and there will be consequences to the company one of which is to comply with the TAJV percentages. I was just curious what you would like to see as "compensation" for the flying already lost if it wasn't money. I would agree with your number 1, fly more to get us back into compliance and make up for the time we have lost prior to winning a grievance. The only problem with that is we would have to eventually cut it back to remain within the proper percentages. Numbers 2 and 3 are resolutions of the problem going forward after a grievance. I would want some kind of compensation for the shortage of flying that is occurring now (whether it be more flying over and above the TAJV percentage to make up the shortfall or money).

When the end of the window comes I sure hope we hold the company's feet to the fire on the this issue. Everything I've heard from my reps leads me to believe we will. Time will tell. It would take a major screw up to lose a grievance like this one.

Denny