Deadhead,

My concerns about penalties are that the company already considers scope violations a money issue. The Company willfully violates our contract as quickly as we pick up a green slip ... as long as it makes money ... they don't see it as a violation because we always monetize job loss.

I truly wonder if we could legally negotiate an agreed release to self help for noncompliance. We need a counter for job loss which is more than just a small pay compensatory bump every time we outsource more Delta pilot jobs. Perhaps a required $15,000,000 donation from each sitting Delta Board Member to the DPCF? Something that would trigger Executive job loss in kind with the loss of our jobs.

Now that you guys have me all spun up ... who's going to represent me if I see a Network Manager or Steve Dickson at the Company Picnic Saturday? Crying kids always helps make the point.

http://betterwithfreckles.files.word...aby1.jpg?w=560

I am very surprised your reps had such poor knowledge of the situation. AF/KLM pulled down just a much as we did. We fell out of compliance because the company failed to increase our flying as called for in the Alitalia agreement. I would vote those guys out quickly. Can you post names?

That's not correct. They have to meet the rolling 36 month look back. Only the first year would be forgiven. That came from the people monitoring the program.

Example: If the Company's EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum 10 EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the 11 Company will return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK 12 allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015.

Come on.

2011 summer schedule: constantly increasing capacity : Air France - Corporate

Your interpretation of that language is more favorable to pilots than the way it was explained to me. So, I agree with you.

I think that right there is key. Basically the company does it's best to comply, but when it can't hold up it's end of the contract, with regard to scope, they tout it as factors outside of their control. The company is negotiating something that they ultimately have little control over when considering demand as the driving factor for growth/increased flying.

Consider this another way....Let's say next contract we offer the company a 10% fuel savings on every flight we operate effective immediately. Obviously, offering this is a joke because it involves many factors outside of our controls as pilots. The company would more than likely scoff at that no matter how much money it looked to save the company each year. Probably not the best example, but it points out that we should be careful negotiating aspects of our contract that management has little control over.

I'm not advocating to give up on scope altogether or insulting the hard work our reps have put into it thus far. Trust me I am truly thankful, but moving forward we need to find a better way to enforce certain aspects of our scope provisions in my opinion.

The rep is out of office, and has been replaced. I won't post names here. Keep in mind I was given this information over a year ago, and at that point AF was dragging their feet with the pull down. I believe they have since caught up, and technically when I was given that information we were not out of compliance, just forecast to be.

I very strongly disagree with your notion the Company does it's best to comply. I have seen no indication it tries at all, quite the opposite.

Let us go back to the RJ issue. Delta had an 18 to 48 month lead on RJ orders, which it executed with every available option. Every time there was a choice, Delta chose to violate scope.

With this Air France scenario, again follow the money. Delta and it's partners have an immunized joint venture meaning they enjoy the legal right to collude on schedules, capacity and marketing. Delta pays for it's share of Air France's flying. Have we read a word about Delta objecting to the program it runs? Any complaints from France about not getting paid?

Delta still pays it's bills to the French and French Canadians ... they just don't choose to fly Delta Jets.

ALPA for it's part, it always desperate to improve pay. Pay is the number one survey response. So when the Company is in breach the survey always says "PAY!" To the politicians credit, they do their best to avoid scope erosion ... they ARE smarter than the survey results in that regard. But a scope breach is an easy pay trade and with pressure from their members that's the easy decision to make.

That's why I think we need to explore a non-pecuniary cure to Company noncompliance.

Let me throw another metaphor out there for TSquare's benefit: How upset would the Company be if I called in sick for a trip. Then they learned that I had been flying for another company, making more money, during the time I was "sick." Further, they learned this was a common practice that I had been doing to get more money for nearly 20 years. It is imagined the Company would immediately terminate me for the breach of our agreement.

Isn't this exactly what the Company is doing by violating our scope, over and over again? Delta is breaching our agreement and flying for someone else. Delta is paying non Delta pilots to do the work of Delta pilots.

As soon as it is legal to do so I will be very happy to walk in support of scope.

And that is at the heart of the problem with contractual JV production balances to begin with. The MEC cannot dictate via PWA that DAL adds flights or AF removes them. Virtually unenforceable. We continue to trade off our core flying for trinkets and baubles. The language is designed so that the compliance period will never allow for us being back in before the next one has us out.

BINGO!

I'm not a rocket surgeon... but 3 years?! Seriously?