Carl;

You are correct, I used the wrong word. There is no violation but there is non-compliance of the first proviso which triggered the second proviso or the cure period. There is NOT non-compliance to the point of a violation which was my point last night.

I took non-compliance in your post to mean violation and I clearly misunderstood your intent. The blame is on me not you.


There is no violation until they are in non-compliance of the second period which ends at the end of March of 2015. It does look like that that time there will be a violation if nothing changes in the JV.


Here is what I wrote:

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.

DALPA doesn't file grievances even for violations that HAVE occurred. Case in point, SD memo.

What's that the PD issue? Those pilots were made whole without having to go through the process of filing and then arbitrating a grievance. The result is their pay sooner.

You do realize that back pay was negotiated for anyone who lost pay due to having a PD placed on their schedule prior to the LOA? WTH would you file a grievance and risk losing money when you can simply negotiate back pay? BTW, DALPA most certainly does file grievances for violations that have occurred.

Actually the last few IAAC and Code Share reports do not have this data in them. All of that was briefed in closed session.

Nope. Its does on the Reps own time, and they send it out on their own. All four work on it and send it out on a rolling basis. No FPL for that work.

Two questions.
Is there a list of the LCA by base and aircraft? Trying to find someone I flew with a while ago.
Second, Is anyone else bothered that money is tied with us giving health information, ie the biometric numbers?

I do not know of a LCA list.

On the second, those plans are not protected by the PWA, and the DPMP does not have those requirement.

I know that, but as a Delta employee, not as a person covered under a PWA, I'd still be mad.

We need to clear this up because monetary penalties are not the only remedies for us regarding contract violations. The remedy can be anything that DALPA demands and that the neutral arbitrator agrees is appropriate.

As I've stated earlier, we should never grieve for a monetary equivalent penalty for scope violations. The only proper penalty for violating a scope section is the removal of said scope section.

We all need to remember that it was the company that wanted this JV. They couldn't have it without DALPA agreeing to modify our scope by adding a new section to our scope. DALPA agreed to let management have the JV, as long as management agreed to the protection provisions authored by DALPA in the new scope section. Now the company operates the JV...but without the protection provisions that allowed the scope change to begin with. Thus the entire scope section allowing this JV needs to be declared null and void, and the JV cease upon winning the grievance. Any other penalty does nothing but monetize the sale of our own jobs.

Carl