Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-08-2011, 02:26 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Read it again. Not off the open time pot, but only other pilots in a base that have their trips on the open time (pilot to pilot) swap board. Also for pickup only. Not a swap, a P/U only. Ergo, it does not effect the staffing formulas or reserve required formulas. Make sense?
04-08-2011, 02:53 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Ask them if they now plan to file a grievance against the Republic codeshare since the govt has apparently made it official that Republic is a single carrier.
Here's a refresher of what's going on here:
The Delta Pilot contract Section 1.D.2.c ("Exception" paragraph) requires Delta to terminate codesharing with any "domestic air carrier" that operates or acquires large aircraft. "other than permitted aircraft types"
Republic acquired aircraft that would violate that section when they purchased Midwest and Frontier.
ALPA has always said that doesn't count. Their reasoning is that Republic Airways Holdings is not an air carrier. It is just a holding company for separate corporations operating under separate FAA certificates. (ie = Frontier, Republic, Chautauqua, Lynx, Shuttle America, etc. are the "air carriers").
DALPA says we don't codeshare with Frontier or Republic and they are the ones operating the Airbuses and E-190s, so its not a violation. Many pilots have said that is clearly wrong. This RAH situation is the EXACT sort of thing that 1D2c was written to prevent. We are subsidizing and bankrolling our competition. If RAH can get around it simply by using FAA certificates then that section of our contract is meaningless. It might as well not even be in there. DALPA has repeatedly declined to file a grievance and find out. They say the ALPA National lawyers have told them they would lose.
The critical question is the definition of a "domestic air carrier".
Our contract Section 1.B.22 uses the definition in federal law.
§ 40102. Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this part—
(2) “air carrier” means a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
(15) “citizen of the United States” means—
(C) a corporation or association organized under the laws of the United States or a State
Most thinking people (non ALPA lawyers) would agree that RAH is a corporation and that they are quite obviously undertaking to provide air transportation. The definition says nothing about operating certificates or anything even remotely like it.
ALPA maintains that the various airlines under RAH are separate air carriers even though they are all owned and controlled by the same corporation. Its going to be a lot harder for them to continue saying that with a straight face now that even the govt has said they are a single air carrier.
There's one further complication. Delta used to codeshare with American Eagle. That was never grieved. Does that mean we have forfeited the right to enforce that part of our contract? ??
Then there's the ALPA politics. (there's always ALPA politics).
Lee Moak wanted to be ALPA President when this came up. He needed RJ pilot support. Scope grievances would not be good for his campaign. Then we have the "recovery compact" thing with management. etc. etc. etc.
ALPA National doesn't want scope battles. They want dues.
etc. etc. etc.
sorry about the long post. I'll stop now. </rant>
If you can't tell, I think ALPA has failed on this issue. Scope enforcement is critical. We'll see what they do now that the NMB has ruled.
Here's a refresher of what's going on here:
The Delta Pilot contract Section 1.D.2.c ("Exception" paragraph) requires Delta to terminate codesharing with any "domestic air carrier" that operates or acquires large aircraft. "other than permitted aircraft types"
Republic acquired aircraft that would violate that section when they purchased Midwest and Frontier.
ALPA has always said that doesn't count. Their reasoning is that Republic Airways Holdings is not an air carrier. It is just a holding company for separate corporations operating under separate FAA certificates. (ie = Frontier, Republic, Chautauqua, Lynx, Shuttle America, etc. are the "air carriers").
DALPA says we don't codeshare with Frontier or Republic and they are the ones operating the Airbuses and E-190s, so its not a violation. Many pilots have said that is clearly wrong. This RAH situation is the EXACT sort of thing that 1D2c was written to prevent. We are subsidizing and bankrolling our competition. If RAH can get around it simply by using FAA certificates then that section of our contract is meaningless. It might as well not even be in there. DALPA has repeatedly declined to file a grievance and find out. They say the ALPA National lawyers have told them they would lose.
The critical question is the definition of a "domestic air carrier".
Our contract Section 1.B.22 uses the definition in federal law.
§ 40102. Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this part—
(2) “air carrier” means a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
(15) “citizen of the United States” means—
(C) a corporation or association organized under the laws of the United States or a State
Most thinking people (non ALPA lawyers) would agree that RAH is a corporation and that they are quite obviously undertaking to provide air transportation. The definition says nothing about operating certificates or anything even remotely like it.
ALPA maintains that the various airlines under RAH are separate air carriers even though they are all owned and controlled by the same corporation. Its going to be a lot harder for them to continue saying that with a straight face now that even the govt has said they are a single air carrier.
There's one further complication. Delta used to codeshare with American Eagle. That was never grieved. Does that mean we have forfeited the right to enforce that part of our contract? ??
Then there's the ALPA politics. (there's always ALPA politics).
Lee Moak wanted to be ALPA President when this came up. He needed RJ pilot support. Scope grievances would not be good for his campaign. Then we have the "recovery compact" thing with management. etc. etc. etc.
ALPA National doesn't want scope battles. They want dues.
etc. etc. etc.
sorry about the long post. I'll stop now. </rant>
If you can't tell, I think ALPA has failed on this issue. Scope enforcement is critical. We'll see what they do now that the NMB has ruled.
Great synopsis, much clearer than mine.
04-08-2011, 03:00 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by tsquare
NO NO NO. If you allow guys to come in and pick up trips in seniority order, you might as well just have one big category system wide and bid on any trip any base.... if one is a junior lineholder he will get screwed. period. Nevermind what will happen to reserves... you aren't thinking this through. There is a HUGE risk of unintended consequence here that you do not see but is all too obvious to me. Camel... nose... tent... It's just like international pilots being allowed to fly domestic trips "as long as they are published in the bid package" See where that little gem got us didn't you? It is a totally stupid idea. (sorry Satch)
IOW hack 1500 (currently required) pilots off the staffing list.
04-08-2011, 04:06 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
Originally Posted by Nosmo King
Deltanet, Flight Ops Page, Click on Quarterly CQ, Click on QCQ2 2011 - Spring
Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Click on Courseware – 2011 Second Quarter QCQ Version 1.0
Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Click on Courseware – 2011 Second Quarter QCQ Version 1.0
04-08-2011, 04:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by tsquare
NO NO NO. If you allow guys to come in and pick up trips in seniority order, you might as well just have one big category system wide and bid on any trip any base.... if one is a junior lineholder he will get screwed. period. Nevermind what will happen to reserves... you aren't thinking this through. There is a HUGE risk of unintended consequence here that you do not see but is all too obvious to me. Camel... nose... tent... It's just like international pilots being allowed to fly domestic trips "as long as they are published in the bid package" See where that little gem got us didn't you? It is a totally stupid idea. (sorry Satch)
04-08-2011, 05:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: Boardroom Chair
Posts: 126
Anyone know the difference between the 744 and 74C in the flight listings?
04-08-2011, 05:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: Boardroom Chair
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
It might help the DPA movement if DALPA does NOTHING.
The DPA does not have a coherent, well thought, platform. But, every time ALPA frustrates the pilots it represents the DPA picks up support.
Like the old Soviet Union, ALPA will implode as a result of its own bureaucratic cardiovascular failure. (you know it starts with loss of blood flow to the extremities and ALPA's a good candidate for a Viagra prescription since Woerth) Outsourcing is the Big Mac, extra cheese, extra mayo, biggie homestyle breaded chili fries with cheese and chocolate shake that tasted good at the moment but are eventually fatal. ALPA needs to get back to basics, get it's butt on the treadmill and start working.
ALPA's still our best hope. Still wondering how to motivate them to start being a union.
So sayeth Doc Jabberwock
04-08-2011, 06:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by scambo1
When Moak was MEC, and this topic came up on the DALPA forum, it was always squashed by the Comm chair. The short answer is that ALPA legal said it wasnt a violation of section 1. If you can read english, it was clearly in violation. The single carrier ruling re-opens the issue because if they are a single carrier, ALPA cannot look the other way (or say these arent the droids you are looking for).
Its one of those situations that actually makes me angry because I know I am being misled by an organization I pay to represent me. What do they think we are? Stupid? I think ALPA counts on pilot non-engagement for their existence. They also love to say to the "forum radicals" why dont you volunteer if you want change. Well many have, but they arent wanted.
Its one of those situations that actually makes me angry because I know I am being misled by an organization I pay to represent me. What do they think we are? Stupid? I think ALPA counts on pilot non-engagement for their existence. They also love to say to the "forum radicals" why dont you volunteer if you want change. Well many have, but they arent wanted.
Look Carl, is just a blowhard who makes things up. ALPA has filed several grievances over Scope and will continue, WHENEVER IT IS ACTUALLY VIOLATED, not when some pilot who thinks he's a lawyer thinks it has been violated. I have no idea what the implications are of this ruling by the NMB, because I am a stupid pilot and not a lawyer, certainly not one of the most experienced, most respected labor attorneys in the country. If this changes the circumstances of our scope clause then a cease and desist letter will be sent to management and if they don't comply, a grievance will be filed.
Volunteers are always wanted, it you want to volunteer, then give me a PM and I will help you get started. Virtually every pilot who works in ALPA started out because their hair was on fire and they wanted to change the world. It's actually much tougher to change the world than it looks on the outside.
04-08-2011, 06:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
Side question:
I'm on reserve and scheduling called to tell me that the 4 day trip they have assigned me is a yellow slip. What does that mean? The 4 day is during days on so I'm not sure what the yellow slip implies. I did reduce my raw score for this month, is it associated with that? Do I get pay above guarantee?
I'm on reserve and scheduling called to tell me that the 4 day trip they have assigned me is a yellow slip. What does that mean? The 4 day is during days on so I'm not sure what the yellow slip implies. I did reduce my raw score for this month, is it associated with that? Do I get pay above guarantee?
04-08-2011, 06:41 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by capncrunch
Side question:
I'm on reserve and scheduling called to tell me that the 4 day trip they have assigned me is a yellow slip. What does that mean? The 4 day is during days on so I'm not sure what the yellow slip implies. I did reduce my raw score for this month, is it associated with that? Do I get pay above guarantee?
I'm on reserve and scheduling called to tell me that the 4 day trip they have assigned me is a yellow slip. What does that mean? The 4 day is during days on so I'm not sure what the yellow slip implies. I did reduce my raw score for this month, is it associated with that? Do I get pay above guarantee?
1) A request to reduce your RAW score by 15 points.
2) A request to be first to be called on short call.
3) A request to fly on X-days.
So your case would be #1.
You don't get above guarrantee unless all your credit exceeds 70 hours. A green slip is automatically above guarantee when awarded.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
