Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-15-2014 | 04:20 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
kidding of course.
05-15-2014 | 04:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
The court Delta would file in would be the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia. They wouldn't "kick that issue to another court," whatever that means. That's not how the system works. If either side disagrees (which would be inevitable) with the ruling either party is free to appeal to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
An injunction is not as easy to get as you and sailing seem to think. It's not something that would happen overnight either. There are factors that the court must consider.
Here's some caselaw for you, straight out of the DAL v. ALPA case in 2000:
"A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not thwart public interest." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991)
As another poster already pointed out, DAL could still cover the schedule using short calls and greenslips. The schedule would get flown, it would just be more expensive for them. Hard to argue that injury would be "irreparable" or that such "injury" would outweigh the harm to the pilots of having our PWA rights trashed by memo.
Again, all of this is moot as your union refuses to stand and fight. And, as I've said before, if DAL were successful at getting an injunction, SO WHAT! Neither DALPA nor the 49ers were fined because they did nothing illegal. Completely different from the AA sickout, which was clearly illegal--hence the fine.
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
An injunction is not as easy to get as you and sailing seem to think. It's not something that would happen overnight either. There are factors that the court must consider.
Here's some caselaw for you, straight out of the DAL v. ALPA case in 2000:
"A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not thwart public interest." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991)
As another poster already pointed out, DAL could still cover the schedule using short calls and greenslips. The schedule would get flown, it would just be more expensive for them. Hard to argue that injury would be "irreparable" or that such "injury" would outweigh the harm to the pilots of having our PWA rights trashed by memo.
Again, all of this is moot as your union refuses to stand and fight. And, as I've said before, if DAL were successful at getting an injunction, SO WHAT! Neither DALPA nor the 49ers were fined because they did nothing illegal. Completely different from the AA sickout, which was clearly illegal--hence the fine.
05-15-2014 | 04:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
05-15-2014 | 04:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Permanently scarred
From ALPA:
Part 117 & Scheduling: FAA Releases More Interpretations
The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
Part 117 & Scheduling: FAA Releases More Interpretations
The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
05-15-2014 | 04:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
05-15-2014 | 05:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,839
Likes: 160
Kind of hard to file a grievance on 1 May when the company has all ready agreed to pay the pilots effected and you have a agreement in principle and are working on final language.
05-15-2014 | 05:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: B737 CA
Interesting text from the "McFadden" interpretation, in response to a question of whether an earlier signed declaration of fitness for duty can carry automatic agreement with an extension:
Subsection 117.l9(a) allows an FDP to be extended up to 2 hours beyond the pertinent FDP limit in response to unforeseen operational circumstances that arise prior to takeoff. This extension is subject to a number of limitations, one of which is that the PIC and the certificate holder must both concur with the extension.' A document that the PIC signed before he found out about the need for an extension would not be sufficient to concur with the extension because a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about. Instead, the PIC must affirmatively concur with the extension.
This seems to make Delta's current policy that signing includes agreement with extensions illegal, doesn't it?
05-15-2014 | 05:10 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
Interesting text from the "McFadden" interpretation, in response to a question of whether an earlier signed declaration of fitness for duty can carry automatic agreement with an extension:
This seems to make Delta's current policy that signing includes agreement with extensions illegal, doesn't it?
This seems to make Delta's current policy that signing includes agreement with extensions illegal, doesn't it?
05-15-2014 | 05:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
05-15-2014 | 05:20 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 0
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
