Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1689947)

If you look at the shortfall over the entire time period it's about 2.5 flights a day. A average flight to Europe takes about 1500 block hours a month. Call it around 4000 block hours total. 100 jobs sounds about right.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1690321)

Bar didn't say DALPA would negotiate it away. He said the company would try to.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1690321)

Bottom line here, you can't file a grievance for a violation that hasn't occurred. That was the point.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1690328)

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.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1690328)

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.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1690357)

Tsquare is exactly right.

When will this madness end!!

http://blog.poopbagclub.com/wp-conte...wjw1o1_500.jpg

Carl

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1689825)

They have, tangentially if you read committee reports from the MEC meetings.

It would be hard to write that Comm without concensus on where we go from here.

It would be good to again remind the pilots that the Transatlantic JV negotiation resulted in a gain for Delta pilots. Management just has not delivered and by some estimates underperformed even our status quo.

Originally Posted by index (Post 1690329)

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

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1690349)

This is factually incorrect. The first course of action is to get the company to just fix it, if that does not happen, we engage them to see it our way, and if they do not a grievance is filed. It cuts down on the number of grievances but it does not cut down on the number of resolved issues.

Some have been taking longer than they should there is no argument there, but they ultimately are resolved in the pilot's favor.

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1690405)

That's exactly where the remedy has to come from...

We are 1.7% below the established 1.5% "wiggle room"
That's the language in 1.P.4 that gave the company a target of 50% but a 1.5% margin of error to give the company flexibility, you know: just in case something unexpected comes up.

Instead of a financial penalty I'd rather see us bet on Delta's good faith effort to deliver what was promised in the first place.

Double or Nothing

I would gladly let the company off the hook if by March 30, 2016 the company brought us 1.7% above the upper band on a 3-year loock-back (that's a 53.2% share)
The penalty for not reaching that goal would be double the lost total compensation from not providing the flying over the past 5 years.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1690401)

Hey Carl,

Not to start anything, but....who's the cat and who's the dog? I hate cats.:D

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1690410)

No acl, you are factually incorrect and index was factually correct. When Dickson sent out that memo, then began to enforce it while taking hostages, that was a contract violation plain and simple. DALPA did NOT file a grievance. DALPA chose negotiations. The rest of your post is non-responsive and deflects from the point.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1690284)

Here it is Alan:

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

Crew Tracking Interaction during FDP Extensions

We’ve received intermittent reports from Detroit pilots (as well as pilots from other bases) that interactions with Crew Tracking, when dealing with flight duty period (FDP) issues, have become somewhat “aggressive”, and are requiring pilots to justify their actions with the OCC Duty Pilot or other personnel.

We remind you that, as per the changes made to the PWA in LOA 14-01, ANY extension to the FDP requires the concurrence of ALL pilots scheduled to fly the particular leg, not just the PIC!

If you are in a situation where an FDP extension is required to complete the flight, but you are within your PWA duty period (< max scheduled + 2 hrs), you are required to conduct a “fitness for duty” check. If you, or anyone on the crew, determines that they are not fit for duty, you have a responsibility to not concur with the extension, and you should so notify Crew Tracking.

“Not fit to continue” is NOT the same as a fatigue call. You are NOT required to say you are fatigued to refuse an FDP extension, only that you are “not fit to continue” or some other equivalent statement.

You are not required to inform or discuss the situation with any party other than Crew Tracking or Dispatch at the point the choice not to extend is made (and that discussion should really be limited to not concurring to an extension because you don’t feel fit for duty). OCC Duty Pilots are NOT in the “chain of command” and are only considered “facilitators”; they are not empowered to discuss FAR 117 fitness requirements or pay implications.

If you are in a position where Crew Tracking insists that that you speak to another party, or declare you are fatigued, simply inform them that you are not required to do so, that you are not fit to continue, and you’ll be happy to discuss any required clarification with your base Chief Pilot AFTER your designated FAR rest period. Note that your FAR rest period does not begin until your company tasks (including any interaction with Crew Tracking) are concluded.

If you have exceeded your max actual PWA duty day, which is the maximum scheduled duty plus two hours (scheduled / max scheduled duty day is located in the upper right of the rotation display), you are not required to provide any reason to Crew Tracking. You have completed your contractual obligation. This provision will apply until the implementation of the FDP duty tables and the other PWA parameters from LOA 14-01, as well as the 5:15 ADG (Average Daily Guarantee), become effective NLT the November 2014 bid period.

If you have encountered any of the situations with Crew Tracking described above, or any other situation that you believe could be classified as “pilot pushing”, please inform one of us as soon as possible, and file an ASAP report.

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

Carl