If the company did not comply with the agreement why would they comply with the penalty? How would you enforce it? The grievance process perhaps?

 

So essentially our contract is a one way document. The Delta pilots have to comply with it; however, the company does not? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

In other words...the company will not be in compliance.

Tell you what. Let's each of us only fly 9 out of every 10 legs...and just blow off the 10th. We'll still expect to be paid for all 10 legs, though.

We'll be "very close to compliance," so there should't be any blowback from the company, right?

 

If it's a legally binding contract then it becomes a lawsuit. Delta sues when someone breaks a contract. If the contract is well written, a judge will decide in favor of those who were harmed. The key is unambiguous language that has a tangible penalty attached to it and union leadership that is willing to enforce the contract.

Delta sues Pratt & Whitney over parts deal | www.myajc.com

Delta Sues LAX, City Over Airport Terminal Lease - Law360

Delta Air Lines threatens legal action against city if it doesn?t find room for carrier at Dallas Love Field | Dallas Morning News

U.S. airlines sue travel clubs for appropriating airline logos - The Washington Post

| Delta sues Greenbrier over flights to Lewisburg

Delta sues US Export-Import Bank over loan guarantees | Finance & Data content from ATWOnline

American, Delta airlines sue travel clubs, allege deceptive practices

and of course Delta gets sued by businesses, government, people each year as well. It's part of doing business.

 

I would read the RLA. It specifies when and how the courts can get involved in the process.

 

With a 54% participation it would seem my reps would not know..... But even putting this aside it is my understanding the NC does/has not released the results of the survey so how would my reps know?

 

Yep, this clause is pretty ridiculous, and this logic applied to any other thing sounds even worse.

"It's illegal to rob a bank, but if you do rob one, you can't rob one the following year."

C'mon, ALPA. You either:
A) Are institutionally dim and cannot learn from past mistakes,
B) Are not trying, or
C) Have an alterior motive for creating loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

I'm truly embarrassed that this is the best my dues dollars can produce.

 

No sailingfun, the teeth is in the language. This language should have the ability to continue the JV based on the monthly maintenance of the agreed to percentages. No percentages, the JV must immediately end. If the company continues it anyway, that's not a grievance, that's a change to the status quo and all that brings.

At the very least, it would make for an easy win on an expedited grievance...not for monetary penalty, but the operational ending of a job killer. Of course none of that is possible when our negotiators PURPOSELY avoid that protective language in favor of pleasing our management partners.

You're making those numbers up entirely. You have no idea.

See above.

That's when you walk away from negotiations then. That is unless you're one of these hopelessly overmatched dupes on our side. Then you just do what you're told...then call it negotiations.

Yes. Operate in strict compliance with our Scope. But the fact you even ask this question betrays the fact that you can never find any reason to EVER deny a management request...for all the reasons you list above. It'd be OK if it was just you, but we have far too many pilots here who share your level of...strength.

Carl

 

Then what about the language that IS in there sailingfun? Why would our negotiators agree to a process of only complying every other year? Why allow management to be heavily out of compliance one year, yet a following year's compliance means you've cured the previous year's non-compliance? Why not language that says the following year's percentages must be reversed in our favor to the same magnitude of the previous year's non-compliance? Instead, we specifically AGREE to it as long as they comply in the following year. Who would agree to that sailingfun? Will you?

Carl

 

No we have the grievance process. If you further read the RLA you will find that the act does allow direct access to the courts in some limited situations classified as a major dispute. Sadly however in almost every case I am aware of recently the courts have sent cases brought by labor back to the grievance process saying they were not major disputes.