You need a new phone, computer, or tablet...my phone loads it no problem.

It could never go 500,000 could it????

You know..."To him that will, wais are not wanting." - George Herbert

Though my device might combust trying.

it was only 275 or so who were losing a months pay (now 220 less) 600 were getting extra furlough pay b/c FM. (Everyone with less than 1 year gets 1 month Instead of 1/2 month)

I don't think it was ever about the furlough pay. The additional 1/2 month was a wash with the one month reduction. This was about declaring FM and using it to wipe our scope. The furlough pay adjustments were just part of that equation.

I completely agree, the number of pilots affected was just off. FM has nothing to do with furlough pay and everything to do with scope. hopefully ALPA fights this, and I really hope they can win it.

side note if the 220 end up not getting furloughed then that only leaves 1 class shorted furlough pay, showing this was never about the pay aspect of it.

yupppppppp

When does FM end? By what time, block hour or other metric does it automatically stop? There’s nothing in the PWA as far as I can tell that says once it’s declared that it can remain forever...or that it can’t.

In the past that has been determined by an arbitrator/mediator in his/her grievance decision.

Denny

So it’s up to ALPA to decide when they think it should end and file a grievance?

I hope that it’s already been filed.

You should hope it’s not been filed because we will lose. We need to file when we have a reasonable chance of winning and the basis for a FM claim is no longer valid.

I was thinking more about how long the grievance process takes which can be years as you know. So I say file it ASAP and get the ball rolling.

Its normally months not years on a major grievance.

Something as wide ranging and important as this plus COVID restrictions and company delays could easily push this into years.

Time critical issues rarely take beyond 6 months. Covid could be a issue but if that’s the case we probably don’t want a hearing anyway. The last thing is you can’t grieve the future. If we file a grievance now it will be about the issues now regardless of when it’s heard. That’s again why you don’t want to employ a Ready, Fire, aim strategy. As I posted prior you don’t fire when the enemy is out of range. You’re going to need that ammo when they are in range.

You don’t know we will lose. Stop being a company yes man. We need to fight this...through the grievance process and publicly through the media. I think your posts normally add value, but to advocate letting the company subvert our contract and do nothing is not acceptable anymore, if it ever was....we need to stop acting like an abused victim.

As I posted before, you need to be smart. I bet the union files nothing. To file now and lose could be a disaster for us 18 months from now. To be clear yes we would lose, 18 to 24 months from now might be a quite different story.

If they don’t file now, then they should at least pin management down on criteria for when FM is over (restored to normal Ops). It’s not clear in the PWA what metrics/benchmarks the company is using, and without any criteria, it constitutes a blank check IMO. It’s not unreasonable to negotiate when FM is concluded. Will it be based on number of pax? Percentage of revenue from previous year? Cashburn neutral? Etc. Whatever is decided, I’m sure it’s based on performance and not time (18-24 months), and now is definitely the time to establish the exact criteria they’re using IMO.

I actually agree with Sailing for once. Politics is murky, we’d lose.

No, theres no politics. If you dont file you set a past practice for no following the contract. What sailing might be trying to get at, and doesnt understand what hes saying, is that the union will file it knowing its at least 6 months for an arbitrator to be available for a new grievance AND the union continues pushing the grievance back for other "more important" items.

It isnt baseball. You cant let the pitch go by and swing on the next one. You must enforce your labor contract.

Sorry but this isn’t how it’s done. Sailing is right on this one and you’re dead wrong. DEAD WRONG.

Lol. Ok dokey sweetums.
​​​​

Shoot, I meant to say that you’ve got it pegged. You’re absolutely right. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

​​​​​​Lol. A little sweet talking and i change your mind. You really do get more flies with honey *TMYK*.

My goal for today was to add a new proverb to my repertoire! That’s a keeper.

There is no past practice. The company is following the contract. It specifically allows for circumstances beyond the control of the company in two sections.

Firstly, you're not following. If you let the pitch go by without filing you CREATE the past practic. I'll say it another way. You fight every violation or else youve created a history of not following that part. Even alpa volunteers have a tough time understanding this concept so I'm not trying to bash your head in this, but you're not approaching this from a contract compliance standpoint.

Secondly you're making the companys argument for them, or at least trying, but they can make those arguments in front of the arbitrator.

​​

You can make the argument now and you will lose. In 18 months when we have a chance and might really need to have a hearing they will say the issue has already been heard. In addition the NMB is very busy with a limited number of arbitrators. Airlines get a reputation and bias gets injected in rulings. We might need the services of a NMB for something critically important like a seniority integration given the state of the industry.

Arbitrators are calling balls and strikes (maybe not perfectly). If delta management wants to violate the contract we have to fight it, theres no consideration for state of the industry. You might have a grander point touching on bigger aspects but what I'm reading you look confused on what happens in arbitration.

The company is free to declare bankruptcy if the terms are too onerous. My old company had an idiot that made his way to contract enforcement that decided on his own "we" werent going to fight for min day any longer because the company was in dire straights. He almost lost min day for the whole pilot group if pilots hadnt gone up the chain to complain to the MEC. You can't get ahead of yourself on this stuff when you have a contract. You may feel its some sort of common sense, but this is way way more functionally organized. Both sides have to go through the steps. No exceptions.

I suspect your contract did not have circumstances beyond the control of the company with regard to min day. If it did you were probably not in the middle of a worldwide pandemic that is crushing the entire airline industry. If both existed during your min day crises I will attach some importance to it. Otherwise it has less than zero relevance to our situation.

I have a comment/question on what I bolded above.

You are assuming this is a violation.....but is it? If a grievance is pursued now, how do you think a neutral party would rule given the circumstances?

Denny

Im not a contract expert.

I assume its a violation and so does sailing fun. I dont even care the issue being brought up. All im saying is you cant let a violation go because "later" the court might be more sympathetic. Arbitrators call balls and strikes (best they can) and dont take current economic climate into a violation.

The grievance committee (or whatever we call it here at delta) is trying to identify violations and harm, then they consult with the alpa attorneys. Theres an order to the grievance process, so you might put a sure winner thats easy to explain (and you have precedent) back further when you can double up (or more) on a day.

Anyway, i was simply telling sailing you can't just pick and choose what to enforce or else youre making a past practice of not enforcing the thing you negotiated for. Now that doesn't mean the arbitrator will agree with you automatically.

Again, you're mistaken. The company is free to choose a legal path to stop paying min day, but until such time, we have a contract (as an example).

You sound like you worked in a business where you were a supplier of some sort, and depending on your terms with your clients you may get in the sort of position youre trying to apply. Labor contracts are a different animal.

​​​​

​​​​​​I keep going back and forth on this issue, Denny. I think reasonable minds would agree that COVID has created a FM more widespread and deeper than the events of 9/11. Thus, I think an arbitrator would find this pandemic and the subsequent government-imposed quarantines and lockdowns to be a circumstance beyond the Company's control.

However, the reason a contract has FM provisions is to excuse performance of a contractual duty. The "old" standard to be measured was impossibility of performance - your factory burned down (presuming you didn't torch it) and now you cannot deliver the 10,000 widgets to your buyer on Friday. The "impossibility" standard has been softened and encompasses more of an "impracticality" perspective. However, and directly relevant to this issue, just because a contract has FM language in it does not mean all of its provisions are automatically triggered. Instead there is a further requirement that the FM event actually result in the Company being “prevented” or “hindered” or “delayed” in performing. Now that Delta has procured an additional $6B through last week's bond offering, I think the Company would be hard pressed to establish it has been "prevented" or "hindered" or "delayed" from paying furloughees that which is due to them under the terms of 21.B.3., especially when you outlay the cost of that performance against the current balance sheet. It isn't as if we are talking about a contractually agreed-upon 5% pay rate increase for 12,000+ pilots. It is a very, very small percentage of the seniority list who are affected and a matter of one month's furlough pay at that. I don't see the arbitrator finding that it is impractical for the Company to comply with that provision.

As you know, 21.B.9.a states: "The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of Section 21 B. 1., 3., and 8. in the event that a circumstance over which the Company does not have control substantially affects the Company’s operations and was the cause of such noncompliance." I don't think the Company prevails on the second prong because the cause for non-compliance was not the circumstance itself, but rather a managerial choice. It wasn't that the Company couldn't pay, it is that the Company is electing not to pay when it has the reasonable and practical means to do so.

Further, I don't believe a grievance on this matter ties the hands of DALPA in any subsequent FM matters because the argument is not whether the pandemic is a circumstance over which the Company does not have control (that would likely be conceded solely for argument sake on this issue) but rather the argument is whether it is impractical for the Company to comply with its contractual obligation under 21.B.3.

Of course, until the Company furloughs and then the Company fails to pay those furloughees according to the provisions of 21.B.3, there is nothing to grieve as no one has been "injured" at this point. Anticipatory breaches are generally not grievable. Hopefully the much-rumored deal to mitigate/eliminate furloughs will come to fruition and this will all be a "moo" argument.

The language is simple and broad, too broad IMHO. The arbitrator would be settling the question of use. If he/she rules there is reason to invoke the language, then they have a green light to apply it to SCOPE. There is no timeframe or bounds that limit the amount of outsourcing Delta would be able to do and this would probably end up in front of a judge because it effectively eliminates all SCOPE protections. The best we can do is negotiate an end to the compliance relief. The month of furlough pay is their trial ballon and our canary.

We will see if they are willing to outsource to entities in or soon to enter bankruptcy. This business plan works great when there is discipline and structure to a JV but with the partners fighting for survival this may prove unmanageable and affect the brand. If management sees this as the prime (only) opportunity and desires a SCOPE fight to make and end run around compliance requirements, this could be the biggest single issue that affects DALPA jobs and contracts for the future. Those most affected may not be around to vote on any settlement. Delta holds the voting demographics in hand by means of furlough.

This is what concerns me the most. Not that they need FM for survival (assuming that’s the case), but that there are little to no limits as applied to Scope, and there are no metrics to dictate when FM is concluded. IMO they’ll use FM for as long as they can, even past the point of profitability, and it will take arbitration to turn it off. It screams blank check. It’s like turning a kid loose in a candy store and saying, “text me when you’re done”. I actually don’t fault the company for this, I fault the ALPA attorneys that green lighted this broad and unbound language in the contract back in 2016. We shouldn’t be asking the question “what turns FM off” after it’s already been declared; the contract should already establish what constitutes recovery from FM. This is a glaring crater in an otherwise decent contract IMO.

And yes, I do believe we should grieve it. If we don’t win, then at least establish some boundaries in arbitration for what constitutes recovery (what turns FM off).

I don’t assume it’s a violation. In fact the contract states it’s not a violation if the circumstances are beyond the companies control.

So your point the whole time was, "this isnt a violation today, but it will be 18-24 months from now"?

Can you think of a situation where the company would be unable to pay furlough pay yet still be in operation? What the company currently should do if they are concerned about FM precedent is not pay furloughed pay but provide each pilot with a equal benefit. That could be a lump payment outside of the contract or a constructive furlough date beyond the planned date giving the pilot the same benefit.

It might be or it might not. At the moment it’s a slam dunk for the company with the rim lowered to 4 feet. As the economy recovers and imposed flight restrictions ease the rim starts to move higher. It will be very easy to show traffic volumes and eased restrictions down the road and make a compelling case. At the moment we don’t even have a case.
if we have a vaccine in the next 6 months I doubt we will even need a grievance.

Sure....when the Company's cash balance is much lower and they have obligations not covered by a FM clause and they are forced to choose which obligations to pay. As I said in my post, the standard isn't impossibility ("unable" in your inquiry), it is "impracticality." The impracticality becomes more and more relevant as cash balances dwindle with other, non-FM protected, obligations still hanging out there. You are disregarding the facts and circumstances of this particular situation. Very few of the 1,941 would be adversely affected by the company paying out under 21.B.9.a versus 21.B.3. The difference to the company is de minimus. The smaller the number of pilots affected means the smaller the difference in payout between 21.B.9.a and 21.B.3 and, therefore, the harder it becomes for the Company to establish impracticality of compliance with 21.B.3.