Yeah, whenever I find myself complaining, I am always quick to ALSO say, "But we're getting a SWEET deal compared to those poor bastiges in LAX!". Your bidpack is so over-weighted with redeyes, I really feel for you. I have to admit, I've gotten my hopes up again (doh!) with the recent increases in 73 flying at LAX, and the LAX-SFO and LAX-SEA runs I see in the last month's trip mix. It's great to see some more flying out west and maybe some competing with AK.

I sure hope YOU guys get that flying in your trip mix, instead of NYC or DTW guys doing the west coast N/S runs as start/fini days, the same way we do MCO-JFK-home. It would be too much to bear to see those flights going to ATL guys, I know there would be some FOs in LAX hang themselves.

 

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

 

Good catch, I mis-quoted. Yeah, I knew I should have looked up the exact times... Before the new TA change you quoted above, the SLC redeyes reported at 21:30 or 21:50 then, it was early enough that for a few months there we were getting the benefit of the 4:30 per day. I just typed 22:30 as I mis-remembered the changeover time.

 

I noticed that too. First paperless fleet, but no mention of the 717 tablet rollout. IDK.

 

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

 

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

 

Thank you, both Denny and Carl. All good points.

 

That's sounds about right!

 

Now I'm with you. I knew I was missing your main point.

Unfortunately, the way I read our JV language, I don't think we have a strong case for receiving any compensatory damages for flying lost prior to the measurement date of March 2014. The arbitrator would likely only give us a fix going forward.

This totally depends on how ALPA allows DALPA to fight this grievance. Any and all funds/legal assets would come from ALPA national. One choice of ALPA's would be to negotiate it away directly with management without any DALPA input. Another would be for DALPA to purposely put forth an extremely weak case and try to lose in exchange for a strategic promise from management. Yet another possibility is for DALPA to claim our language is too weak to even grieve (like the RAH scope abuse).

In order to win this, we would need a strong response from ALPA national showing anger at the number of jobs lost by Delta pilots and commit the full legal resources of national to defend the language and accept nothing other than full compliance immediately. It will also require DALPA forcing management to do something they absolutely don't want to do. What do you think our chances are of getting these responses from ALPA/DALPA?

Carl

 

Here's something I've been thinking about ever since the "Early Contract, Golden Opportunity", you know, the one where Richard traded us 4833 with upcoming record profits, in exchange for the 717's and parking the 50 seat RJ's, ie. all of which was going to happen regardless...

What If...

Richard is going to now trade DALPA the much fabled Wide Body Order, for JVTA and NRT Slot relief?

It'll sound something like this:

Hey guys, Richard says we can't make money flying X, Y and Z...but if we give him Scope Relief (again) he will order 12 more A330's, to fly A, B and C!!

Hoo Ray! It's Win Win! Again!

Seems to me that Richard has never wasted an opportunity to trade the corporate long term plans to DALPA, in exchange for more scope relief.

I mean heck, if they are going to do it anyway, why not tell DALPA the whole deal rests ON THEM capitulating...something, right?

What's the worst that could happen?

Has DALPA ever said NO to...anything Richard threw at them?

So, I expect we will give all the JVTA and NRT slot relief necessary, and as soon as we do, Richard will announce the Wide Body Order.... Just don't be surprised when you find out this big Wide Body Order is really 767ER replacement jets, something they were going to have to do anyway.