Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-13-2011, 02:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 2,115
Let's get back on topic!
04-13-2011, 03:28 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by dragon
I think the biggest problem we have right now are a few guys who think they understand, but don't bother to do any research or read the #$&! contract.
Permitted aircraft are 50 seat RJs and 255 aircraft 51-76 seaters of which no more than 120 can be 71-76 seaters. That 120 number can increase with pre-merger DAL mainline fleet growth or decrease to 85 if the flow is cancelled and it's possible all of those 120 76 seaters can be made into 70 seaters if a pre-9/11 mainline pilot is furloughed. [PWA 1.B.40]
If, however, a Delta Connection carrier flying for Delta on a CPA or RPA flying permitted aircraft then acquires an aircraft that is not permitted then Delta will terminate such operations and will need to do so either by the date that non-permitted aircraft entered revenue service or 9 months from the date that Delta became aware of the potential acquisition, whichever comes later. [PWA 1.D.2.C]
However, a Delta Connection carrier on a CPA or RPA may fly both permitted and non-permitted aircraft if the non-permitted flying is not performed for Delta, there is no reduction in Delta’s existing block hours as a result of that connection carrier using the non-permitted aircraft, the aircraft is not flown on a city pair served by Delta and last only if that jet aircraft that was never certified to carry more than 106 and currently only seats 97 passengers or less. [PWA 1.D.2]
04-13-2011, 03:53 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by N9373M
I have got three comments about this page on L&G:
1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude.
2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been.
3. This girls shirt is too long.
4. Her pants are also too long.
Ok four comments.
04-13-2011, 04:07 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
The way I see it, and according to the NMB Finding from 07APR11 the IBT asked "the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) to investigate whether Republic Airlines (RA), Shuttle America (Shuttle), Chautauqua Airlines (Chautauqua), Frontier Airlines (Frontier), and Lynx Aviation (Lynx) (collectively the Carriers) are operating as a single transportation system for the craft or class of Pilots."
So the question was very specific as it related to craft or class of pilots and the NMB ruled:
Now why not ask another question, “are they an STS operationally?” After all this is what they say:
There seems a lot of evidence that an STS exists and all ALPA needs to do is agree and demand that our scope clause be upheld shifting any DCI flying away from RAH and sadly to other DCI carriers but more likelihood they're ALPA pilots.
So would ALPA find that RAH is STS? I think so:
YEAH ALPA! right? I mean, they'll file right?
So the question was very specific as it related to craft or class of pilots and the NMB ruled:
"The current investigation establishes that RA, Shuttle, Chautauqua, Frontier and Lynx are operating as a single transportation system (Republic Airlines et al./Frontier) for the craft or class of Pilots..."
So they answered a specific question as to whether RAH is STS for craft or class of pilots, and the NMB said yes. Now why not ask another question, “are they an STS operationally?” After all this is what they say:
"Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. (RAH) is the holding company that owns RA, Chautauqua, Shuttle, Frontier, Lynx, and the former Midwest and operates both “fixed fee” and “branded” operations."
"Management is integrated, and all labor relations and personnel functions for the Carriers are administered by RAH under the stewardship of Ron Henson, VP, Labor Relations. RAH stated that the single carrier that currently is comprised of Chautauqua, Shuttle, and RA will continue to exist in its current form and will be held out to the public and marketed under the brand of the applicable flying partners or the Frontier brand. Frontier (and Lynx until its closing) will continue to be held out to the public and marketed under the Frontier brand."
"According to IBT, the entities are operating as a single transportation system as evidenced by substantial operational integration, common control and ownership, and overlapping senior management and labor relations at each subsidiary…. Pilot recruiting for each of its subsidiaries is handled by RAH. In addition, IBT contends that further evidence of single carrier status is the fact that all the Pilots of the various subsidiaries have been integrated into a single seniority list."
“Finally, the IBT contends that there have been significant steps towards the integration of Frontier into the single transportation system since the Board’s March 2010 decision regarding the Flight Attendants. Chautauqua Airlines, 37 NMB 148 (2010).
Examples of this integration include further consolidation of administrative, operational, and labor functions of Frontier into RAH at its Indianapolis, Indiana headquarters; consolidation of the Frontier employees under RAH’s handbooks and policies; Frontier’s website links prospective employees to the RAH website to search for open positions; and finally, there has been a combination of the branded operations by the various affiliates into the Frontier brand, which has resulted in RA and Chautauqua aircraft being painted in Frontier livery, and the flying of RA and Chautauqua planes as Frontier branded operations.”
"Management is integrated, and all labor relations and personnel functions for the Carriers are administered by RAH under the stewardship of Ron Henson, VP, Labor Relations. RAH stated that the single carrier that currently is comprised of Chautauqua, Shuttle, and RA will continue to exist in its current form and will be held out to the public and marketed under the brand of the applicable flying partners or the Frontier brand. Frontier (and Lynx until its closing) will continue to be held out to the public and marketed under the Frontier brand."
"According to IBT, the entities are operating as a single transportation system as evidenced by substantial operational integration, common control and ownership, and overlapping senior management and labor relations at each subsidiary…. Pilot recruiting for each of its subsidiaries is handled by RAH. In addition, IBT contends that further evidence of single carrier status is the fact that all the Pilots of the various subsidiaries have been integrated into a single seniority list."
“Finally, the IBT contends that there have been significant steps towards the integration of Frontier into the single transportation system since the Board’s March 2010 decision regarding the Flight Attendants. Chautauqua Airlines, 37 NMB 148 (2010).
Examples of this integration include further consolidation of administrative, operational, and labor functions of Frontier into RAH at its Indianapolis, Indiana headquarters; consolidation of the Frontier employees under RAH’s handbooks and policies; Frontier’s website links prospective employees to the RAH website to search for open positions; and finally, there has been a combination of the branded operations by the various affiliates into the Frontier brand, which has resulted in RA and Chautauqua aircraft being painted in Frontier livery, and the flying of RA and Chautauqua planes as Frontier branded operations.”
There seems a lot of evidence that an STS exists and all ALPA needs to do is agree and demand that our scope clause be upheld shifting any DCI flying away from RAH and sadly to other DCI carriers but more likelihood they're ALPA pilots.
So would ALPA find that RAH is STS? I think so:
“ALPA contends that all of RAH’s subsidiaries are a single transportation system for the craft or class of Pilots, but also argues that the Midwest Pilots are part of the single transportation system. …. This ongoing integration of operations has now integrated Frontier/Lynx into the single transportation system, so that the system today includes the Carriers “plus Midwest.” ALPA believes that the intertwined nature of RAH’s two types of operations make the finding of a single transportation system the only result consistent with the RLA’s representation structure.”
YEAH ALPA! right? I mean, they'll file right?
04-13-2011, 04:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Karnak
You're wrong...on both counts!
First, YOU should read Section 18.B.2. it will only take you two paragraphs to realize you just gave someone bag dope. Then please come back on here and apologize to him.
Second, Contract Admin has assisted independent grievants on several occasions, including a current independent grievance filed by some PMNW pilots.
Did you read his post carefully? Here's what he wrote: I don't know because I'm not a litigious guy, but I can read english and I have read section 1. I find no defensible "its not against the contract" position in what I read.
I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion.
Why would he need negotiator's notes if it's so simple? He's off to a good start though. Unlike some, HE actually read the contract...
I think he should start with a solid understanding of the issue. It prevents pilots from, say, posting bad dope on something that can be easily understood by reading the contract.
I think the biggest problem we have right now are a few guys who think they understand, but don't bother to do any research or read the #$&! contract. They give bad advice.
First, YOU should read Section 18.B.2. it will only take you two paragraphs to realize you just gave someone bag dope. Then please come back on here and apologize to him.
Second, Contract Admin has assisted independent grievants on several occasions, including a current independent grievance filed by some PMNW pilots.
Did you read his post carefully? Here's what he wrote: I don't know because I'm not a litigious guy, but I can read english and I have read section 1. I find no defensible "its not against the contract" position in what I read.
I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion.
Why would he need negotiator's notes if it's so simple? He's off to a good start though. Unlike some, HE actually read the contract...
I think he should start with a solid understanding of the issue. It prevents pilots from, say, posting bad dope on something that can be easily understood by reading the contract.
I think the biggest problem we have right now are a few guys who think they understand, but don't bother to do any research or read the #$&! contract. They give bad advice.
Heyas,
Nowhere in 18.B.2 does it say anything other than the most general process outline for a grievance.
It doesn't say anything about what the association will or will not do about grievances they don't agree with. It all comes down to what the contract administrator wants to do.
And in some case, what he wants (or is instructed) to do is nothing. Heck, the fNWA guys can't even get their rig grievance heard, and that was from BEFORE the merger of the MEC. These guys have been BEGGING for this grievance to be heard, but now we're in for what, ANOTHER special MEC meeting to "handle it". What are we up to...three? Or was it four special MEC meetings on this? Any one of which probably costs more than the arbitration hearing.
If 18.B.2 is so clear, why hasn't this been heard? It has be that DALPA must be a willing participant in the grievance process, and if they are not, things can get drug out a LONG time.
Scambo's point is clear. If the contract language is plainly apparent, why should he HAVE to independently grieve it. Should blatant violations be jumped on already? Isn't that what we pay DALPA for?
My point was also clear, so that big hat must be squeezing your brain. If Scambo doesn't like the way things are being handled, I pointed out the way for him to correct it, and it isn't even all that much effort.
Nu
04-13-2011, 05:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by scambo1
I have got three comments about this page on L&G:
1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude.
2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been.
3. This girls shirt is too long.
4. Her pants are also too long.
Ok four comments.
1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude.
2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been.
3. This girls shirt is too long.
4. Her pants are also too long.
Ok four comments.
04-13-2011, 05:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: B744 F/O
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by buzzpat
Which Buzz? That one maybe, certainly not this one. I'm with you guys 100%.
Sorry, I was speaking of the communications chair.
04-13-2011, 05:15 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Hate to state something so obvious, but this is exactly what I've been saying would happen. I've been guaranteeing for over a month now that ALPA/DALPA would do nothing if the NMB ruled single carrier status. Even the ever-apologetic acl65pilot said: 'I'd have serious issues with DALPA if NMB ruled single status and tried to say that it represents no problems with our Section 1.'
The usual suspects around here had to wait a few days to get their talking point emails from DALPA communications, but now they've predictably come to the defense of their one love...their true love...ALPA.
I'll say it one last time: ALPA/DALPA will never fight this because their main goal is all RAH pilots being members of ALPA. If that means losing by not fighting - so be it. At least they won't be alienating a pilot group that they wish to win over some day. Even though the contract language is CLEARLY on our side, DALPA will NEVER be allowed to defend this utterly clear language.
THIS is ALPA. And as such, THIS is DALPA.
Carl
The usual suspects around here had to wait a few days to get their talking point emails from DALPA communications, but now they've predictably come to the defense of their one love...their true love...ALPA.
I'll say it one last time: ALPA/DALPA will never fight this because their main goal is all RAH pilots being members of ALPA. If that means losing by not fighting - so be it. At least they won't be alienating a pilot group that they wish to win over some day. Even though the contract language is CLEARLY on our side, DALPA will NEVER be allowed to defend this utterly clear language.
THIS is ALPA. And as such, THIS is DALPA.
Carl
04-13-2011, 05:17 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by scambo1
I have got three comments about this page on L&G:
1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude.
2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been.
3. This girls shirt is too long.
4. Her pants are also too long.
Ok four comments.
1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude.
2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been.
3. This girls shirt is too long.
4. Her pants are also too long.
Ok four comments.
Carl
04-13-2011, 05:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Okay, Section 1 as FTB reads it: all flying performed by or for Delta will be performed by Delta pilots in accordance with the PWA [PWA 1.C.1] unless it is a Delta Connection carrier flying an aircraft that is permitted or is flying done by foreign carriers, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines in accordance with the PWA. [PWA 1.D.1]
Permitted aircraft are 50 seat RJs and 255 aircraft 51-76 seaters of which no more than 120 can be 71-76 seaters. That 120 number can increase with pre-merger DAL mainline fleet growth or decrease to 85 if the flow is cancelled and it's possible all of those 120 76 seaters can be made into 70 seaters if a pre-9/11 mainline pilot is furloughed. [PWA 1.B.40]
If, however, a Delta Connection carrier flying for Delta on a CPA or RPA flying permitted aircraft then acquires an aircraft that is not permitted then Delta will terminate such operations and will need to do so either by the date that non-permitted aircraft entered revenue service or 9 months from the date that Delta became aware of the potential acquisition, whichever comes later. [PWA 1.D.2.C]
However, a Delta Connection carrier on a CPA or RPA may fly both permitted and non-permitted aircraft if the non-permitted flying is not performed for Delta, there is no reduction in Delta’s existing block hours as a result of that connection carrier using the non-permitted aircraft, the aircraft is not flown on a city pair served by Delta and last only if that jet aircraft that was never certified to carry more than 106 and currently only seats 97 passengers or less. [PWA 1.D.2]
Permitted aircraft are 50 seat RJs and 255 aircraft 51-76 seaters of which no more than 120 can be 71-76 seaters. That 120 number can increase with pre-merger DAL mainline fleet growth or decrease to 85 if the flow is cancelled and it's possible all of those 120 76 seaters can be made into 70 seaters if a pre-9/11 mainline pilot is furloughed. [PWA 1.B.40]
If, however, a Delta Connection carrier flying for Delta on a CPA or RPA flying permitted aircraft then acquires an aircraft that is not permitted then Delta will terminate such operations and will need to do so either by the date that non-permitted aircraft entered revenue service or 9 months from the date that Delta became aware of the potential acquisition, whichever comes later. [PWA 1.D.2.C]
However, a Delta Connection carrier on a CPA or RPA may fly both permitted and non-permitted aircraft if the non-permitted flying is not performed for Delta, there is no reduction in Delta’s existing block hours as a result of that connection carrier using the non-permitted aircraft, the aircraft is not flown on a city pair served by Delta and last only if that jet aircraft that was never certified to carry more than 106 and currently only seats 97 passengers or less. [PWA 1.D.2]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
