Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-22-2014, 08:51 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Carl,
+1
+1
07-22-2014, 08:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by tsquare
Hey, I can be reasonable. I can even see your POV occasionally as being correct. (You and I just disagree mostly on methodology) What would really blow my mind would be to see Propaganda Drank post something pro union. (I ain't holding my breath)
07-22-2014, 08:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Ha! Carl I was just going to post that "Example" quote from 1.P.6. They are definitely out of compliance with the contract as of March 14, 2014. They have a year to get back in to compliance.
I hope this issue is kept separate from the contract 2015 negotiations that are scheduled to begin about the same time...
Denny
I hope this issue is kept separate from the contract 2015 negotiations that are scheduled to begin about the same time...
Denny
07-22-2014, 08:53 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
The part bolded above is about a far from the point guy's like me are trying to get at. I have absolutely NO problem with dissent, argument, discussion or whatever you want to call it. Where I have a problem is with all the name calling etc. that goes on here. Sorry Purple, no offense, but I'm going to use you as an example. After about the first 10 posts about the "$3 billion," you made your point. It's just annoying now. Once that kind of attitude becomes part of the conversation, the conversation degenerates and is not worth reading or commenting on.
There are many times that I've typed something out and then erased it because it's just not worth it. I know what's going to happen. I may disagree with Carl on a lot of things but at least he and I can have an adult conversation with out all the juvenile tit for tat stuff. (And Carl, I really appreciate that!
)
Standing by for incoming!
Denny
There are many times that I've typed something out and then erased it because it's just not worth it. I know what's going to happen. I may disagree with Carl on a lot of things but at least he and I can have an adult conversation with out all the juvenile tit for tat stuff. (And Carl, I really appreciate that!
)Standing by for incoming!
Denny
Retard?
Retard!!!!!
Just kidding Denny.
07-22-2014, 08:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by gzsg
Can't speak for purple, but a FAR 117 was a grand slam!
A complete and utter total fail for ALPA.
If nothing else, I was excited about hard limit duty days. Common sense says 13 hours is too long considering the lives at stake. Unbelievablely here we are with the same old thing.
I actually think its worse now.
07-22-2014, 08:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Carl;
Read the PWA. It states that at the end of the three year measurement period, ok, a three year measurement period - got it the company has one year to cure the deficit. IE, they are not out of compliance until the end of the cure period. No judge or arbitrator is going to side with labor if you file a grievance before the end of the one year measurement period. wait, what? Is the measurement period one year or three years, I'm confused The non-compliance does not occur until the end of the cure period. Plain and simple.
Read the PWA. It states that at the end of the three year measurement period, ok, a three year measurement period - got it the company has one year to cure the deficit. IE, they are not out of compliance until the end of the cure period. No judge or arbitrator is going to side with labor if you file a grievance before the end of the one year measurement period. wait, what? Is the measurement period one year or three years, I'm confused The non-compliance does not occur until the end of the cure period. Plain and simple.
If the answer is yes, then all is good and there is no need for the one year cure period.
If the answer is no, then, by definition, a non-compliance exists.
Plain and simple.
I do agree that a grievance would be premature at this point since our contract generously gives the company one year to get back in compliance. Make no mistake though - just because the contract gives them one year to fix the violation does not mean that a "non-compliance" did not exist.
07-22-2014, 09:00 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Ha! Carl I was just going to post that "Example" quote from 1.P.6. They are definitely out of compliance with the contract as of March 14, 2014. They have a year to get back in to compliance.
I hope this issue is kept separate from the contract 2015 negotiations that are scheduled to begin about the same time...
Denny
I hope this issue is kept separate from the contract 2015 negotiations that are scheduled to begin about the same time...
Denny
07-22-2014, 09:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
I have read the PWA, you're making excuses for management and against the jobs of Delta pilots. Here's the PWA:
Section 1. P. 4 "...The baseline EASK allocations are 50% for DL and 50% for AF/KL/AZ...
...In the case of the rolling three- year measurement periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be required to maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus 1.50%) of the total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6."
Section 1. P. 6 "If the Company is not in compliance with the minimum EASK capacity allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for any measurement period, the Company will cure any such breach by increasing the number of DL EASKs or decreasing the number of AF/KL/AZ EASKs to return the Company’s EASK capacity share to compliance with the minimum EASK allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for the then current rolling three-year measurement period.
Example: If the Company’s EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the Company will return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015."
Note the bolded above? "If the company is not in compliance"? After April 1 of 2014, the company is out of compliance with our PWA as stated by our PWA. We're now in the "cure" period for the company to become compliant. If they're not in compliance by March 31, 2015, they'll be in violation of the contract. Not just non-compliant with it, but in violation of it.
I just cannot imagine why I'm having to say this instead of DALPA. Worse yet, we have an active rep like you purposely mischaracterizing the meaning of the plain written word in a way that favors the company and hurts the jobs of Delta pilots. I would expect that from management, but it's depressing to see this behavior from a rep.
Carl
Section 1. P. 4 "...The baseline EASK allocations are 50% for DL and 50% for AF/KL/AZ...
...In the case of the rolling three- year measurement periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be required to maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus 1.50%) of the total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6."
Section 1. P. 6 "If the Company is not in compliance with the minimum EASK capacity allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for any measurement period, the Company will cure any such breach by increasing the number of DL EASKs or decreasing the number of AF/KL/AZ EASKs to return the Company’s EASK capacity share to compliance with the minimum EASK allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for the then current rolling three-year measurement period.
Example: If the Company’s EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the Company will return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015."
Note the bolded above? "If the company is not in compliance"? After April 1 of 2014, the company is out of compliance with our PWA as stated by our PWA. We're now in the "cure" period for the company to become compliant. If they're not in compliance by March 31, 2015, they'll be in violation of the contract. Not just non-compliant with it, but in violation of it.
I just cannot imagine why I'm having to say this instead of DALPA. Worse yet, we have an active rep like you purposely mischaracterizing the meaning of the plain written word in a way that favors the company and hurts the jobs of Delta pilots. I would expect that from management, but it's depressing to see this behavior from a rep.
Carl
07-22-2014, 09:14 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by gzsg
For management.
A complete and utter total fail for ALPA.
If nothing else, I was excited about hard limit duty days. Common sense says 13 hours is too long considering the lives at stake. Unbelievablely here we are with the same old thing.
I actually think its worse now.
A complete and utter total fail for ALPA.
If nothing else, I was excited about hard limit duty days. Common sense says 13 hours is too long considering the lives at stake. Unbelievablely here we are with the same old thing.
I actually think its worse now.
If I sleep a normal night, and start work at 9am, I can go 13 hours with little problem. (A caveat to that would be if I am up and down in the weather all day reduces that). So the question is what would make these fatigue issues safer? Maybe not flying on the backside of the clock at all? How could we do that? Lives at stake or not, it is a fact in our profession that we do what we can to mitigate that fatigue. Some guys can handle it, and some cannot. I bid around allnighters second only to Africa.
And I think it extremely unfair to call this a fail for ALPA. I read the proposed legislation beginning to end, and was shocked when the final document came out. That was done at the bureaucrat bribery level, and I don't believe ALPA had any input at that point. I could be wrong. But I do get a bit incensed when I hear ALPA talk about this as a science backed piece of law. That is laughable imho.
And did you really quote yourself???
Originally Posted by gzsg
Can't speak for purple, but a FAR 117 was a grand slam!
07-22-2014, 09:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
I have read the PWA, you're making excuses for management and against the jobs of Delta pilots. Here's the PWA:
Section 1. P. 4 "...The baseline EASK allocations are 50% for DL and 50% for AF/KL/AZ...
...In the case of the rolling three- year measurement periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be required to maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus 1.50%) of the total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6."
Section 1. P. 6 "If the Company is not in compliance with the minimum EASK capacity allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for any measurement period, the Company will cure any such breach by increasing the number of DL EASKs or decreasing the number of AF/KL/AZ EASKs to return the Company’s EASK capacity share to compliance with the minimum EASK allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for the then current rolling three-year measurement period.
Example: If the Company’s EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the Company will return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015."
Note the bolded above? "If the company is not in compliance"? After April 1 of 2014, the company is out of compliance with our PWA as stated by our PWA. We're now in the "cure" period for the company to become compliant. If they're not in compliance by March 31, 2015, they'll be in violation of the contract. Not just non-compliant with it, but in violation of it.
I just cannot imagine why I'm having to say this instead of DALPA. Worse yet, we have an active rep like you purposely mischaracterizing the meaning of the plain written word in a way that favors the company and hurts the jobs of Delta pilots. I would expect that from management, but it's depressing to see this behavior from a rep.
Carl
Section 1. P. 4 "...The baseline EASK allocations are 50% for DL and 50% for AF/KL/AZ...
...In the case of the rolling three- year measurement periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be required to maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus 1.50%) of the total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6."
Section 1. P. 6 "If the Company is not in compliance with the minimum EASK capacity allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for any measurement period, the Company will cure any such breach by increasing the number of DL EASKs or decreasing the number of AF/KL/AZ EASKs to return the Company’s EASK capacity share to compliance with the minimum EASK allocation under Section 1 P. 4. for the then current rolling three-year measurement period.
Example: If the Company’s EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the Company will return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015."
Note the bolded above? "If the company is not in compliance"? After April 1 of 2014, the company is out of compliance with our PWA as stated by our PWA. We're now in the "cure" period for the company to become compliant. If they're not in compliance by March 31, 2015, they'll be in violation of the contract. Not just non-compliant with it, but in violation of it.
I just cannot imagine why I'm having to say this instead of DALPA. Worse yet, we have an active rep like you purposely mischaracterizing the meaning of the plain written word in a way that favors the company and hurts the jobs of Delta pilots. I would expect that from management, but it's depressing to see this behavior from a rep.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
