Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1689555)

Mona Lisa Vito: [comes out of the bathroom] Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water... BAM! A ****in bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a **** what kind of pants the son of a ***** who shot you was wearing?

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1689208)

OK everybody, get your defibrillators ready. Carl is right about this... sort of. ACL, you are hiding behind legal technicality. What SHOULD be happening is that the lawyers should have the grievance documentation drawn up, and should file it within 10 seconds of the moment that the company is (legally) out of compliance. They should also let the judge know that this paperwork will be inbound so that he can make a ruling as soon as possible. There need be no study. There need be no debate. There need be no committee meetings after that moment. File it. Immediately.

I suggest a stronger voltage on the defibrillators.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689573)

Not saying we disagree. I'd tell you to write your Reps in C66 T.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689573)

Not saying we disagree.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689573)

I'd tell you to write your Reps in C66 T.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1689566)

Pretty good stuff from the Council 20 meeting, emphasis mine:

---------------------------------------

Contract 2015 Rumors. The MEC hasn’t had any discussions about C2015 topics or priorities.

Reducing Profit Sharing. The “public” debate about this seems to revolve around trading pay rates for Profit Sharing. This rumor could have originated or been bolstered by charts which have existed for some time and were recently included in the Contract History, which compare 2004 777 pay rates with 2014 777 pay rates with, and without recent profit sharing components.

Perspective: After decades of working agreements with profit sharing components that paid little or nothing, we believe that reducing profit sharing during a time of record profits with prospects for the trend to continue, especially considering the “restructured” industry environment and Delta’s drastically reduced debt and improved efficiencies and performance, is a bad idea. Furthermore, the pilot group has invested a significant amount in concessions over the past 10 years, and we consider any profit sharing to be our “dividend” for that investment. It would have been more constructive, and potentially perceived as more balanced, if some type of inflation-adjusted chart relative to the 2004 pay rates were also included.

“Pay Banding”. This is the “banding” of several categories’ pay rates into common bands or groupings. For example, UAL negotiated this type of scheme into their joint contract with the top band consisting of the 767-400 up through the 747-400 (same pay rates).

Perspective: The downside to Pay Banding is position bidding stagnation, which is exacerbated by long potential freezes, for all, including many who are late in their careers with a limited number of moves remaining after waiting 10-15 years for upward movement to finally begin again. While there may be ways to carefully transition to pay banding and offset the negative consequences, they may likely include parameters about which the Company has little interest.

Sick Leave. We continue to hear from many (unofficial) sources that the Company is not happy with our current sick leave language. Apparently they believed that the current policy with the increased number of hoops to jump through, along with mandated more aggressive involvement by supervisory personnel and a dedicated sick leave management department, would discourage pilot sick calls. As it’s turning out, our aging pilot group still gets sick and completes the necessary processes to comply with the Company’s application of the PWA language and additional extra-contractual Company policies.

Perspective: Compared to other airlines with large sick leave banks, the Company’s exposure to extended sick events is limited to three to four months before their component of a pilot’s pay is reduced to (likely less than) 50% compared to long term banked sick leave. It is disappointing that after sometimes decades of service, in just three or four months, a pilot must face a 10-15% real pay reduction (at best) when they are forced “off payroll” into disability augmented with DPMA (when available) when faced with the serious medical challenges which are only more likely to occur with age.

“Following the ‘time honored’ process”. Ultimately the MEC will need to be extremely vigilant during this round of negotiations that:

Ø MEC direction is followed.

Ø It’s clear what that direction is.

Ø The direction is given in a formal, explicit process rather than an implied, passive process.

Ø The actual proposed PWA language is available for review and there’s time to review it.

Ø Significant contract parameters (like pay rates) are specifically briefed prior to a TA being reached.

Ø There are no contrived threats constructed to create false deadlines.

Ø The membership gets all the info about any deal, including the good, the neutral, and the bad; attempting to create an impression that no part of a potential agreement is anything less than awesome will hurt the credibility of the process and the result.

Ø The MEC is not intimidated to not recommend any result that doesn’t accomplish any of the above or one that’s simply not satisfactory.

Clearly, some of these process problems existed in C2012, contrary to the prevaricating, semantics, straw man building, and factual obfuscation that has recently been revived in “public” commentary from a couple of those key to the failure of the TA endgame, review and recommendation process, if not the final democratic exercise by the membership.

-------------------------------------------

Carl

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689598)

Also codifying damages of non compliance in the PWA just would make contractual violations a business decision.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689598)

IE violate the EASK provisions just pay the pilots dollars.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689598)

Trust me, you do that, you create data that makes violating the PWA a good business decision. IE a dangerous road to travel. Esp w scope.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689600)

No idea. The MEC has not made a decision nor do they need to. Not yet. But they are watching it and getting a lot of data on it.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689577)

Lets try this again Carl. Contractual compliance or non-compliance goes farther than just compliance with the EASK balance listed in the PWA. As you have dutifully copied here, in the PWA, there is a measurement period of three years, that is date defined. Compliance or -non-compliance of the metric that was agreed to, determines not a PWA violation but if the secondary provision of a cure period is triggered.

As you and I are totally aware of, the "company" is below the compliance band, (do not have the exactly number) as it was measured at the end of March 2014, and as a result the cure period as mutually agreed to many moons ago is triggered. Non-compliance of the EASK balance at the end of the measurement period does not equate to a contractual violation.

As you read there is directive language in the fact that the company "will" return to compliance in the one year cure. If that does not happen, and at the end of this period, and only then is there a violation of the PWA by the "company."

I know you know this, but you cherry pick what suits your purpose. Any contract that has a remedy clause in it, with a date specific period, results if the party that has the damages having to wait to file claim until that remedy period is over. It is the same on any contact, labor agreements or otherwise.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1688482)

That position is populism. The PWA wrt to the JV does not have noncompliance yet.

Originally Posted by ImTumbleweed (Post 1689630)

Carl,

Are those your notes from a meeting or are they published from C20 (as in an email)?

I like the message. I hope it's official from a DALPA source but not sure.

If it's from DALPA Council 20 I'd say "finally...someone get's it".

Let us know, thanks!

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1689580)

No they were out of compliance of the required EASK balance at the end of the three year measurement period which triggered the contractually agreed to cure period. Only at the end of the "cure period" and the "company" still being out of compliance will a contractual violation occur.

Just because we want the violation and grievance to be filed now does not mean that it will be correct or legally admissible buy a judge, or arbitrator. As far as they will be concerned, no violation will have occurred and the grievance will be turned down without merit.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1688482)

That position is populism. The PWA wrt to the JV does not have noncompliance yet.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1689653)

I did scheduling committee work at PMDL for several years, and I can tell you that these statement are complete BS. The company does violate the contract at times. I have never seen them once do it deliberately, as in "we know the contract says A, but we are going to do B anyway, and we dare you to file a grievance."

At PMNW that was actually quite common (so I have been told by north guys) but both PMDL and the merged DL does not do that.

Or if you insist on believing it, how about a few specific instances?

I am not talking about a mistake in scheduling or reroute, a computer automation error, or even a strong disagreement between the company and union on just what some "grey area" might or might not mean. I am talking about straight up, "we are knowingly violating the contract and defy you to oppose us."

Specific examples please.