Quote:
The company at the time appears to have been expecting a favorable outcome on the actual interpretation of some aspects of FAR117. ALPA was able to prevail in DC on most of those interpretations. The final clarification was not what ATA was seeking. Once the rule was clarified the company came back to DALPA and requested negotiations on FAR117 after snubbing us the first time. Those negotiation are now ongoing however personally I believe we should withdraw from those discussions until SD retracts his letter from 6 Dec.
I use the term blindsided loosely At the either expense we were not prepared for the company's defiant, thumb-nosed response.Originally Posted by sailingfun
There are a couple of points that need to be clarified here. DALPA was not caught off guard by 117. They approached the company last March to begin discussions on FAR 117. The company stated at that time that we would want to much for any changes and they planned to operate under the current contract. The company felt that previous LOA's had not been cost effective for the company. Several provisions that tied into furloughs cost the company a enormous amount of money after the 09 economic downturn and the LOA that modified recovery flying has turned out to be far more expensive then they thought. I know the forum has a different opinion of the cost benefits of various LOA's. but the company and DALPA usually agree on costing data. I am not sure where the forum gets its costing data. The company at the time appears to have been expecting a favorable outcome on the actual interpretation of some aspects of FAR117. ALPA was able to prevail in DC on most of those interpretations. The final clarification was not what ATA was seeking. Once the rule was clarified the company came back to DALPA and requested negotiations on FAR117 after snubbing us the first time. Those negotiation are now ongoing however personally I believe we should withdraw from those discussions until SD retracts his letter from 6 Dec.
Not to distract from the topic at hand, but I believe this could be a defining moment from our union one way or another. If DALPA comes down on the wrong side of this debate they risk alienating many of the pilots, however if DALPA comes off strong and decisive many of us would rally together. I'm all for constructive engagement, but the company has taken it to far with SD's memo. I wouldn't want to be a crew scheduler in the upcoming months. While I will not go out of my way to acknowledge a trip under are 3 hour prior to show contractual obligation, I will certainly not go out of my way to comply with flight ops self-imposed contractual alterations. I think the fact that a flight ops memo was issued before anything from DALPA is telling that the union is pushing back.