When AZ was brought it our goal was to stay at 50% of the EASK's. We would have been well below it if we would have just added AZ EASK's to the total mix and then take our look-back percentage. Prior to the addition of AZ our negotiated portion was over 51%. It would have been near 47% without negotiations.

What we got with AZ being added and the start of a new three year measurement period was 50-50 on the EASK's. At the time the industry was moderately growing, DAL was still eying to be A 50-50 International airline etc. We also forget that we were the first with these types of JV's and most have literally copied our language.

Yes three years is too long, yes it should be shorter, yes, DAL would be in violation of the PWA is the end of the cure period was today, and yes the MEC is watching it. Like it or hate it a MEC about two and a half years ago agreed to this. Remember that we were just starting to have profitable years back then? Remember the environment we were in? Those that drafted this language go what they could. I asked, and asked and asked. Honestly I believe em. I also believe the Reps when they say that they are watching this very closely because it means WB jobs and seat progression to all. After all it was negotiated in good faith, but it was negotiated.

I disagree. Flat footed no, it has been trending this way for a year and a half. Remember back in Bush's last six months in office how the world was caught off guard about the enormity of the financial mess? Remember how Europe fell next? Remember how Asia was doing well and they moved WB flying over there? We have to realize where we were at the time, and to say that the this was all known prior to agreeing to this language is in my opinion incorrect.

We don't have to like what we agreed to, we can accuse DALPA of being duped, or we can see where the language has not met our goals and if there is non-compliance in March of 2015 we remedy it. If there is an opportunity prior to that I am sure the MEC will look at it.

I was vocal about the TA, but honestly, its over a year in the rearview mirror. The MEC is different, more vocal, and seeking the changes and gains the pilots want. The company is doing very well, and if anything it just raises my expectations farther. I do not think that those that voted for the TA liked the work rule changes, but many weighed it for what it was and voted for it. We can be irritated with that fact, or we can reengage and make sure that the next time we are in that level of negotiations it adds more than a billion dollars over three years. I know what I want done.

I am sure that the next round of "all in" negotiations will prove the the viability of proactive engagement.

 

You're correct in that section 14 F.3 has parameters before verification is required, but that's not the whole story. You should realize 14 F.4 (below) is separate from F.3 and does not require a pilot to reach those numbers before the CP makes his inquiry.I don't see any parameters there, and to me it seems the CP is well within his right to call and inquire as to why a pilot called in sick. And then if the CP wanted the pilot to back it up with a doctors visit he could.

My background and experience was you flew unless you were sick. If you were sick then you went to see a doctor and he documented the event. I'm not bemoaning the language, but I do read it as giving the CP a lot of latitude to verify sick usage. The language in the old PWA pretty much gave them the same right.

 

ACL, good points and added info. I'm hoping next time will be better as well. I think a good start would be a survey that doesn't include any "what would you be willing to give up for..." I can't recall if that was specifically in the survey, but I was left with a sense that was the tone in some parts.

 

 

I'm familiar with the entire policy, & I understand your point. So if the old agreement gave the CP the same rights, wouldn't you consider 100 hours of unverified time per year a gain?

My point has been that the new sick policy is better then the old one.

 

Just give it a glass of wine and some cheese, wait until she is le ready.

 

The part was in CVG, amirite??

 

Honest questions...How is our tie up with Virgin different from Alitalia's with AF/KLM in terms of the JV? Could Delta's plan be to include the EASKs flown by Virgin into Delta's percentage and then be in compliance? I hope the JV is for the DAL metal share? Didn't Alitalia's flying get lumped into AF/KLM's share?

Philly

 

I just take issue with the claim that there are parameters that have to be met before a CP can call. As to the 100 hr so unverified, yes it's a gain which is good, but per the language it's not all that great if the next section says any sick call can justify a call from the CP on a good faith basis. Now, if there aren't many calls going out then it's mostly a moot point. I agree, I don't think the good faith basis is being abused and pilots are being harassed.

 

An agreement for the Virgin Atlantic JV hasn't even been agreed to yet. So I'm fairly certain that isn't possible. The JV hasn't even officially kicked off yet. AFAIK, we are simply code sharing with Virgin Atlantic right now.