Originally Posted by georgetg

Are these the numbers you speak of?



The first vertical black line in March 2014 labeled Measurement date is when we measured compliance.
The company din't comply with the PWA lower limit and fell short.

The second vertical line in March 2015 labeled Cure date is the cure date.
With 3 months to go, it is safe to say that the company will also fail to meet that goal.




And once agin your shortfall amount based on here-say is also incorrect and doesn't match the publications by the MEC, but I'm sure you know that...
Would you like me to show you that MEC data also?

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Jerry,

The Negotiator's Notepad does a good job on the worst case scenarios. Rather than retype what they wrote, let me just re-direct you to that document on your MEC Library page. As you read through those scenarios, I would ask you to compare the result with VS LOA to without VS LOA.

Noncompliance requires a cure. If the Company does not cure then it would result in an expedited grievance.

You raise an interesting point about vendor agreements. Very few people have seen these contracts. Board members do not have access. I was asked to resolve a lawsuit between fee for departure providers who basically were suing each other for "loss of use" due to RJ's getting damaged. The task was figure out the revenue streams less variable costs. The confidentiality of the contracts was the primary reason for the agreement to seek alternative dispute resolution.

If you were to apply a similar agreement to a PWA it would look something like this:

• pilots take a 60% cut in pay. Base rates are less than costs. Therefore, pilots must make bonus money to survive.
• Company keeps metrics on pilots on time performance, completion factor, training, and safety metrics (in no particular order).
• Pilots can potentially earn an 50% bonus for performance (hence a 10% potential raise). Lower levels of bonus for lower performance.
• Poor performance (perhaps due to no fault of the pilot) results in payments less than it costs the pilot to buy a car, buy a uniform and drive to work. Bankruptcy results from poor performance. (In Mesa / Freedom's case they alleged they had been moved to KLGA where they could not make the bonus money ... not their fault ... Court said, tough)

None of that is confidential. Review the lawsuits between Mesa/Freedom, or SkyWest and Delta for details. Bottom line, pilots would hate being vendors. There is a reason that end of the market is imploding (in some cases).

I would like to explore economic incentives for compliance, but probably not in the way you are thinking. Since Delta manages their money, perhaps we could restrict payment for non-conforming operations by third parties (like the vendor agreements). The question is whether any penalty which could be realistically negotiated would be as good a deterrent as the expedited grievance process. In concept, the grievance should be resolved by making the affected pilots completely whole. The Company has the uncertainty of the outcome (which they hate) and the risk of ugly labor relations making the press.

Another aspect to consider; Labor Protective Provisions evolve at a glacial pace (maybe slower than glaciers if measured by Al Gore). American's Scope Section remained stuck, got struck down by the Courts and effectively mirrors our ~ 2010 agreement, after 15 years. United's also mirrors ours. In the meantime, the Delta MEC has remained in nearly constant scope negotiations which have substantially increased the amount of flying being done by Delta mainline and this VS JV is another World first. Compared to the rest of the industry, we've been in warp drive.

Just my opinion ... .

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Got it. We wouldn't win anyways. So as line pilots let's just



and let's talk about something else, like what's the current mbh ratio... Wait no, how about we talk about profit sharing, how awesome it is and how we need to monetize it.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Please do. The chart you post shows they will be just over 47%. Exactly what I stated. Remember it's a 4 year average. Many pilots got confused by statements about how many flights the company would have to add to come into compliance. With 1 year to go the company would of course have to add far more flying for 1 year then over the entire 4 year measurement period.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Please do. The chart you post shows they will be just over 47%. Exactly what I stated. Remember it's a 4 year average. Many pilots got confused by statements about how many flights the company would have to add to come into compliance. With 1 year to go the company would of course have to add far more flying for 1 year then over the entire 4 year measurement period.

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO

sailingfun,

We get it, we know the numbers and the math. It's real simple. At the end of a very long period the company will be out of compliance. As you have pointed out with less and less time to go it would require more and more flights to meet their obligations.

These are widebody jobs meaning more pilots per airframe and towards the top of the payscales. It will be interesting to see how this is settled once a grievance is filed. I do not want to see it rolled into C2015 as some here have pontificated.

Originally Posted by georgetg

Sailing you are indeed confused.

It appears you don't understand that the cure period ends March 2015 at the black vertical line labeled Cure date.
That's when we measure (again) and are able to grieve the existing non-compliance.



Sailing, it appears that perhaps you are erroneously looking at September 2015?




When it comes to the measurement period, it appears you haven't even looked at the language in the PWA where it states it is a rolling 36-month look-back...
Please reference PWA 1.P.6:



So just to confirm:

• Cure period ends March 30, 2015
• At the end of March 2015 the 36-month rolling look-back must at least reach 48.5% (that's the dashed lower red line)

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by sailingfun

This forum stated that it would be rolled into the VA agreement many times. That did not happen. We are expected as part of the grievance process to try and reach a settlement with the company. I fully expect the MEC to file a grievance this spring. If we will reach a settlement with the company prior to going to the arbitrator I have no idea. The shortfall is not however as large as some perceive. Some value will have to be attached to the shortfall at some point in the process via a settlement or the arbitrator.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

Thanks, everyone, for the gouge the other night. JB also recommended foran's. Got in late and wanted to stay close, so I went there. Tried Short's Huma Lupa Licious. Rock-solid IPA. Food was...OK.

Long DTW might become a Plan B layover:

- Pack a couple cans of Dale's
- Chill in sink using hotel laundry bag with ice
- Order pizza