Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Mesabah 05-09-2012 03:24 PM


Originally Posted by Delta1067 (Post 1185141)
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about. :cool:

Colgan was forced onto the Pinnacle pilots, a judge even ruled Colgan was in violation of Pinnacle pilots scope contract. The judge then went on to say there was nothing the Pinnacle pilots could do about it.

Edit: I'm not saying that is going to happen at Delta, but it's interesting to look at.

acl65pilot 05-09-2012 03:27 PM


Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1185120)
A contract item as defined by the NMB, is pay, work rules, filing of vacancies etc. Scope is not one of them, it's simply who is to be covered by that agreement. You can't strike over 76 jet flying at DCI, once you give it up, it's gone. The only way to put it back is to get management to volunteer it back. How do you plan to do that? Voting NO repeatedly on a contract isn't going to do that.

Schematically correct, but if the company needed an agreement completed bad enough the may be willing to concede the point to get a passable agreement.

At that point it becomes about leverage.

As to DAL1067's last. The statement was once negotiated.

scambo1 05-09-2012 03:28 PM


Originally Posted by Delta1067 (Post 1185141)
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about. :cool:

You have to read what he is actually saying. He is saying basically once we allow something to be outsourced, we have agreed that it is gone...It is no longer our job, it is the other guys.

He is not saying anything else.

We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.

hockeypilot44 05-09-2012 03:41 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1185043)
This post really irritates me. You and many other RJ guys used to be regular posters calling us major pilots greedy bastards for selling scope to line our own pockets. Now you come here and post this? Seriously? So if we were all stupid enough to buy in to Mesabah's attempt to make us think we're in a no-win situation, we sell more scope...then you come back and screech at us for ruining your life...again?

Seems like every one of you RJ guys say: "I'm not a lifer" and "I don't want you guys to give up more scope". Yet when it comes to us fighting to do what you've expressly asked us to do, you post this kind of drivel that sounds like something directly from a management cubicle.

Un-freakin-real.

Carl

The regional guys are not the problem. We are the problem. There are plenty of regional pilots that are not lifers. We say we will not sell any more scope, but our union is in negotiations to allow more 76 seaters. We are going to be sold on it that we are actually improving our scope by our own union. Our pilots as a whole are too naive or selfish to see right through this. It will pass. This is not the regional pilots fault. We need to take the stand. Not them.

Mesabah 05-09-2012 03:49 PM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1185150)
Schematically correct, but if the company needed an agreement completed bad enough the may be willing to concede the point to get a passable agreement.

At that point it becomes about leverage.

That is still possibly a step in the wrong direction. A 100% NO vote, no matter how good the first TA is, is what's needed to start taking steps in the right direction.

forgot to bid 05-09-2012 03:53 PM


Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1185151)
You have to read what he is actually saying. He is saying basically once we allow something to be outsourced, we have agreed that it is gone...It is no longer our job, it is the other guys.

He is not saying anything else.

We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.

That's the way I read it too:


Definition of Major Dispute. Major disputes involve the creation or changing of collective bargaining agreements on rates of pay, work rules and working conditions, and are subject to conciliation procedures that are purposely long and drawn-out. Unlike other industries, collective bargaining agreements under the RLA do not expire on certain dates, but remain in full force and effect until changed in accordance with the procedures of the RLA.


RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:

- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").

- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.

- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.

- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.

- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.

- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.

Self-help. The RLA is silent on the scope of allowable self-help available to the parties after they have exhausted the major dispute resolution procedures. However, court decisions have made clear that the scope of permissible self-help is broad, extending considerably beyond the bounds of self-help that would be permitted to employers and unions covered by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Courts have ruled, for example, that an RLA union may strike and peacefully picket a carrier with which it has a primary dispute, engage in intermittent work stoppages ( e.g ., "selective" or "rolling strikes"), and secondarily picket other neutral RLA employers (a practice prohibited under the NLRA). For carriers, self-help includes: implementing their proposed contract changes; making a national response to defend against a selective strike that jeopardizes national bargaining, including locking out striking workers and, if the labor contract with non-striking workers permits, other workers; and replacing striking workers. The courts cannot enjoin such self-help activity.

forgot to bid 05-09-2012 03:54 PM


Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1185164)
The regional guys are not the problem. We are the problem. There are plenty of regional pilots that are not lifers. We say we will not sell any more scope, but our union is in negotiations to allow more 76 seaters. We are going to be sold on it that we are actually improving our scope by our own union. Our pilots as a whole are too naive or selfish to see right through this. It will pass. This is not the regional pilots fault. We need to take the stand. Not them.

I do have to say, I doubt we'd turn anything down if it was recommended. :(

it makes me nervous we might bite on a "if you give up in writing then we promise to provide..."

means we gave up something for nothing.

NWA320pilot 05-09-2012 04:18 PM


Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1185168)
That is still possibly a step in the wrong direction. A 100% NO vote, no matter how good the first TA is, is what's needed to start taking steps in the right direction.

Yeah right......:rolleyes:

acl65pilot 05-09-2012 04:51 PM


Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1185168)
That is still possibly a step in the wrong direction. A 100% NO vote, no matter how good the first TA is, is what's needed to start taking steps in the right direction.

A down vote either by the MEC or the pilot group is all that counts. Buy 50%+1 is stills NO. it's like losing a ball game by one point. It's still a loss.

TeddyKGB 05-09-2012 05:33 PM


Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1185151)
You have to read what he is actually saying. He is saying basically once we allow something to be outsourced, we have agreed that it is gone...It is no longer our job, it is the other guys.

He is not saying anything else.

We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.


Of course once it is negotiated away we have to maintain status quo on it. That wasn't the initial issue. Mesabah is just back peddling now. His original stance was that section 1 wasn't part of the contract and that it couldn't be strike material. He was incorrect on that. It is part of the contract and could be struck over. Keep back peddling guys. Section 1 is part of the contract and is strike material.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:53 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands