Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-13-2011 | 07:26 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Shiz;
I for one applaud your fearless defense of what you feel is the truth. You never seem to make it or take it personally. You are honest with no apparent agenda beyond raising the bar.
I sometimes agree with some of your posts and often I do not, but at least you are honest about your perspective.
I am not interested in picking at this post because it would be a he said she said. I agree that DPA - if they mobilized the troops -could or should get some agenda items moving right now. I think they should do this too.
There may be some reason they are not either strategically or legally, I dont know. Sadly, with ALPA, we rank and file types are sidelined and marginalized. I dont need my voice heard on every issue but I do need it heard on scope and it has been heard.
If DALPA doesnt pull a rabbit out of a hat with respect to RAH I am a DPA man - it was the last straw for me, I've seen enough. Its really that simple.
Without scope, every other contract section is meaningless.
I for one applaud your fearless defense of what you feel is the truth. You never seem to make it or take it personally. You are honest with no apparent agenda beyond raising the bar.
I sometimes agree with some of your posts and often I do not, but at least you are honest about your perspective.
I am not interested in picking at this post because it would be a he said she said. I agree that DPA - if they mobilized the troops -could or should get some agenda items moving right now. I think they should do this too.
There may be some reason they are not either strategically or legally, I dont know. Sadly, with ALPA, we rank and file types are sidelined and marginalized. I dont need my voice heard on every issue but I do need it heard on scope and it has been heard.
If DALPA doesnt pull a rabbit out of a hat with respect to RAH I am a DPA man - it was the last straw for me, I've seen enough. Its really that simple.
Without scope, every other contract section is meaningless.
I really do try to eliminate emotion from my assessments of what is best for me and my family. I view this career as a business, and emotion doesn't help you seal the deal in a business transaction.
It pains me, but if you stick to what you say, I think you might be gone to DPA, as the RAH situation is (in my opinion) a lost cause....The use of AE out of LAX for a long, long time has essentially killed the ability to use the applicable part of Section 1 to give RAH the boot. We are left to suffer with what we have for now, but its up to us if we continue to allow it to remain weak. I'd ask you to not send a card, but you have to do what you discern to be the most effective course of action.
FWIW, I like Bar and many others want to see the use of an "inclusive" scope section (Bar's eloquence and clarity of ideas on it are extremely well written).
I too really, really would like DALPA to give us something to rally behind, I just think that strategically or practically this isn't right time. I mean what is so important right now that we can't wait? At this time, I believe that we WILL see a "call to arms" but I think they are keeping the powder dry until we are in Section 6 and the company needs a big "jolt" by the pilot group to push them to accede on the last couple of things. I just hope we hold together long enough to hear and respond to that message when the time comes.
07-13-2011 | 07:31 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
I would love to see fact based evidence of this, for all pilots to see.
I know that in 2000-01, UALALPA and DALPA produced the richest contracts in us airline history.
I know that SWAPA has NEVER produced contractual gains that propelled them to "lead the industry", and that APA has done pretty well but never really "led" the pack (well except maybe with the B-scale).
I know that NPA (Airtran), and FPA (FedEx) were independent and decided to JOIN ALPA instead of stay independent because it was a better way to make gains in their careers.
I know that USAPA has produced NOTHING tangible for their pilots in more than two years of "independent operation", and they have a multi-million budget deficit that threatens the existence of the organization.
This is what I know. I do not know of any accomplishments of DPA.
I know that in 2000-01, UALALPA and DALPA produced the richest contracts in us airline history.
I know that SWAPA has NEVER produced contractual gains that propelled them to "lead the industry", and that APA has done pretty well but never really "led" the pack (well except maybe with the B-scale).
I know that NPA (Airtran), and FPA (FedEx) were independent and decided to JOIN ALPA instead of stay independent because it was a better way to make gains in their careers.
I know that USAPA has produced NOTHING tangible for their pilots in more than two years of "independent operation", and they have a multi-million budget deficit that threatens the existence of the organization.
This is what I know. I do not know of any accomplishments of DPA.
I know that the DPA has hired the Seham law firm to aid in their start up. I know the TWA pilots also used the services of Seham.
I know I'm prouder than ever to be supporting the decertification of ALPA.
Carl
07-13-2011 | 07:32 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
07-13-2011 | 07:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
You've asked this "question" continuously despite it being answered continuously. It's clear you don't want to hear the answers, hoping that the continued asking will mean something profound.
This is all you've EVER had to say about the DPA thus far. You shouldn't worry too much about 3,000+ volunteers doing your latest idea of something cool, because I think there will be 7,000+ folks real soon. Then we'll start to see people's hard work actually accomplishing something...by performing it in our new in-house union.
Carl
This is all you've EVER had to say about the DPA thus far. You shouldn't worry too much about 3,000+ volunteers doing your latest idea of something cool, because I think there will be 7,000+ folks real soon. Then we'll start to see people's hard work actually accomplishing something...by performing it in our new in-house union.
Carl
Show me some hard work, I'll show you some interest.
07-13-2011 | 07:40 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
07-13-2011 | 07:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Well, capncrunch, since you apparently do have concerns that YOUR rep is being unduly influenced by Lee, why don't you get off the couch, convince your fellow pilots, and have that rep recalled??
Or you can just sit here and continue to whine about how life's not fair. It's up to you.
Or you can just sit here and continue to whine about how life's not fair. It's up to you.
07-13-2011 | 07:45 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
OH...I got it. It was local that hired the incompetent lawyers to write our scope language. It was local that hired lawyers that said we have no case and shouldn't even file a grievance.
Thank goodness. Because if they had been national lawyers, I would have had a point.
Carl
Thank goodness. Because if they had been national lawyers, I would have had a point.
Carl
07-13-2011 | 07:49 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
Check,
I think what makes the RAH situation unique is the fact that the NMB declared them a "single carrier" for pilot representation purposes even though they operate on a number of certificates. This is what I have heartburn with.
AA and American Eagle may both be under AMR but they have not been given that "single carrier" designation by the NMB.
Denny
I think what makes the RAH situation unique is the fact that the NMB declared them a "single carrier" for pilot representation purposes even though they operate on a number of certificates. This is what I have heartburn with.
AA and American Eagle may both be under AMR but they have not been given that "single carrier" designation by the NMB.
Denny
There's a misperception out there however about the NMB's role in our scope clause. Let me just tag on to your post to explain my understanding of that situation.
forgot to bid has been a tireless advocate for the strict enforcement of our scope but he often mentions in his posts how its the NMB that would need to take the next step here beyond declaring RAH a single transportation system for representation purposes.
FTB ---This is not a violation of our scope because what RAH has done is gamed the system and it's legal. The only way it'd be a violation is if the NMB was asked to rule that RAH is STS. As in period. The question put forth by the RAH pilots union was is there STS for representation issues? The answer from the NMB was the affirmative to the question asked.
We need a new question, is RAH a STS? < period. What ALPA said was they were going to look at the issues related to the legal definition of air carrier, as in, we may pursue a tact that will further define air carrier to say all the airlines within a holdings company is STS.
We need a new question, is RAH a STS? < period. What ALPA said was they were going to look at the issues related to the legal definition of air carrier, as in, we may pursue a tact that will further define air carrier to say all the airlines within a holdings company is STS.
Just trying to clarify for everyone -- the NMB does not make those kinds of rulings. They have nothing to do with the definition of "air carrier" which is at issue in our contract. The Railway Labor Act does not give them jurisdiction to do that. They only look at STS questions in the case of representation disputes and their determinations have no effect beyond that. Their investigation of RAH would certainly provide a wealth of data and arguments for us to use, but if we want to have RAH declared an air carrier for purposes of scope enforcement, it has to come from the System Board of Adjustment via a grievance procedure. The question of whether RAH is legally an "air carrier" is what's known as a "minor dispute" under the RLA. (sorry. more legal jargon) here's a couple links:
Major vs. Minor disputes = Railway Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Railroad Labor Act Overview
IV. Grievance Disputes (So Called "Minor Disputes")
Definition of Minor Disputes. Disputes that arise out of the interpretation or application of existing contractual rights are considered minor disputes. Courts have ruled that a dispute is minor if the employer's action complained of by a contract employee is "arguably justified" by the collective bargaining agreement. Minor disputes initially are dealt with through the carrier's internal dispute resolution procedures. If a minor dispute is not settled through initial discussions, it may be referred for binding arbitration by either party to a grievance adjustment board composed of union and management representatives -- system adjustment boards in the case of airlines, and the National Railroad Adjustment Board or to special boards of adjustment in the case of railroads.
Sorry to be nitpicking. Just wanted to get that out there. If we want to move on the RAH issue, the MEC has to file a grievance and then the System Board takes over. Its not the NMB at all.
Last edited by Check Essential; 07-13-2011 at 08:11 PM.
07-13-2011 | 07:57 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Your other demand that DPA supporters work within ALPA to change ALPA fails to understand that we have no interest in wasting our energies. You believe in ALPA, so you don't understand how anyone could think of it as wasted energy. I understand that. We don't agree. Most DPA supporters are completely finished with ALPA and see it as totally broken, corrupt, and now guilty of selling out its own members. I want my energies totally devoted to decertifying ALPA.
Again, I don't know if you really want to understand or just ask your rhetorical questions. But I've given you the answer.
Carl
07-13-2011 | 08:10 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I hear you Denny, and I'm grateful to the NMB for bringing attention to the high degree of integration among the various units of RAH.
There's a misperception out there however about the NMB's role in our scope clause. Let me just tag on to your post to explain my understanding of that situation.
forgot to bid has been a tireless advocate for the strict enforcement of our scope but he often mentions in his posts how its the NMB that would need to take the next step here beyond declaring RAH a single transportation system for representation purposes.
Just trying to clarify for everyone -- the NMB does not make those kinds of rulings. They have nothing to do with the definition of "air carrier" which is at issue in our contract. The Railway Labor Act does not give them jurisdiction to do that. They only look at STS questions in the case of representation disputes and their determinations have no effect beyond that. Their investigation of RAH would certainly provide a wealth of data and arguments for us to use, but if we want to have RAH declared an air carrier for purposes of scope enforcement, it has to come from the System Board of Adjustment via a grievance procedure. The question of whether RAH is legally an "air carrier" is what's known as a "minor dispute" under the RLA. (sorry. more legal jargon) here's a couple links:
Railway Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Railroad Labor Act Overview
IV. Grievance Disputes (So Called "Minor Disputes")
Definition of Minor Disputes. Disputes that arise out of the interpretation or application of existing contractual rights are considered minor disputes. Courts have ruled that a dispute is minor if the employer's action complained of by a contract employee is "arguably justified" by the collective bargaining agreement. Minor disputes initially are dealt with through the carrier's internal dispute resolution procedures. If a minor dispute is not settled through initial discussions, it may be referred for binding arbitration by either party to a grievance adjustment board composed of union and management representatives -- system adjustment boards in the case of airlines, and the National Railroad Adjustment Board or to special boards of adjustment in the case of railroads.
Sorry to be nitpicking. Just wanted to get that out there. If we want to move on the RAH issue, the MEC has to file a grievance and then the System Board takes over. Its not the NMB at all.
There's a misperception out there however about the NMB's role in our scope clause. Let me just tag on to your post to explain my understanding of that situation.
forgot to bid has been a tireless advocate for the strict enforcement of our scope but he often mentions in his posts how its the NMB that would need to take the next step here beyond declaring RAH a single transportation system for representation purposes.
Just trying to clarify for everyone -- the NMB does not make those kinds of rulings. They have nothing to do with the definition of "air carrier" which is at issue in our contract. The Railway Labor Act does not give them jurisdiction to do that. They only look at STS questions in the case of representation disputes and their determinations have no effect beyond that. Their investigation of RAH would certainly provide a wealth of data and arguments for us to use, but if we want to have RAH declared an air carrier for purposes of scope enforcement, it has to come from the System Board of Adjustment via a grievance procedure. The question of whether RAH is legally an "air carrier" is what's known as a "minor dispute" under the RLA. (sorry. more legal jargon) here's a couple links:
Railway Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Railroad Labor Act Overview
IV. Grievance Disputes (So Called "Minor Disputes")
Definition of Minor Disputes. Disputes that arise out of the interpretation or application of existing contractual rights are considered minor disputes. Courts have ruled that a dispute is minor if the employer's action complained of by a contract employee is "arguably justified" by the collective bargaining agreement. Minor disputes initially are dealt with through the carrier's internal dispute resolution procedures. If a minor dispute is not settled through initial discussions, it may be referred for binding arbitration by either party to a grievance adjustment board composed of union and management representatives -- system adjustment boards in the case of airlines, and the National Railroad Adjustment Board or to special boards of adjustment in the case of railroads.
Sorry to be nitpicking. Just wanted to get that out there. If we want to move on the RAH issue, the MEC has to file a grievance and then the System Board takes over. Its not the NMB at all.
Plan A would be the air carrier definition. And I thought the idea of going after the legal definition of air carrier would be something to take up with the DOT for government clarification similar to what was done with the Whitlow letter in 2000?
If we get the interpretation to be that a holdings company is STS then RAH, AMR/AE and anyone else is out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
