Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 492 of 1030
« First
392
442
482
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
502
542
592
992
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

300SMK 05-27-2015 10:19 AM
PWA Scope
 
From Section 1 SCOPE of the PWA dated January 23rd, 2015

B. Definitions

6. “Alaska hub” means SEA, ANC, LAX and any other airport having a monthly average of at least 100 Alaska scheduled flight departures per day.
23. “Delta hub” means ATL, CVG, DTW, JFK, LAX, LGA, MEM, MSP, SLC, and any other airport having a monthly average of at least 100 Delta scheduled flight departures per day.
Exception: SEA is not a Delta hub, regardless of the number of scheduled flight departures.
O. Permitted Arrangements Pursuant to the Alaska Marketing Agreement
2. The DL code will not be placed on AS flight segments between Delta hubs whether or not a Delta hub is also an Alaska hub.
3. The DL code will not be placed on AS flight segments to or from a Delta hub.
Exception one: The DL code may be placed on AS flight segments to or from LAX, subject to Section 1 O. 2. Any such flight segments between LAX and an Alaska hub will be included in the calculations in Section 1 O. 3. Exception two.

 5. With respect to flight segments of AS in a city pair, no more than:
a. the following percentage of monthly passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling under the DL code:
  • 1) 50% for flights between SEA and either MSP or ATL, and
  • 2) 35% for flights in all other city pairs, or
b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling under the DL code per flight segment, if in the month involved this results in a lesser number of passenger seats occupied by such passengers than under Section 1 O. 5. a.


Unchanged or without a phaseout of the Alaska Marketing Agreement I am a no vote. The Captain seat vacancies on the west coast have created movement across the entire system and we haven't even taken delivery of an A350 or new A330s.



BenderRodriguez 05-27-2015 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1889864)
Disclosure: Tsquare owns a ton of Delta stock, so he is both about max pay for widebody CA's, and max company profits.
Where do you work again?

gloopy 05-27-2015 10:41 AM
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1889843)
Yeah, I do know that, but I was wondering if you had any references for it other than just forum hyperbole. The only thing I have on it is the Scope analysis PP slides frot he May MEC meeting and it is a little vague. Things on here tend to get blown out of proportion. Hard to believe, I know.
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.

What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.

Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.

Mesabah 05-27-2015 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1889870)
Where do you work again?
It changes all the time, so Temporary Air Lines???

BenderRodriguez 05-27-2015 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1889888)
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.

What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.

Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
Seems reasonable to me. It will be interesting to see the results of the grievance

Flamer 05-27-2015 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1889888)
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.

What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.

Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
It must be because we are not staffed for that level of international flying. Maybe all Intl categories should not WS or GS for a few months to help out with the shortage?

Carl Spackler 05-27-2015 11:14 AM
Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1889888)
I'm not saying its cost us 10,000 jobs or a million dollars per pilot or anything. But the company was out of balance for the entire, VERY generous 3 year window, and then out of compliance for the entire generous 1 year "cure period" where they had ZERO INTENTION of curing anything. They did what they wanted and told us to "pound sand and grieve it" after the end of their "deal" with us on that.

What's even more egregious about it is that for the entire duration of the deal, our "half" was liberally defined as 48.5%. Why? Because they needed a margin or error? OK, why not 51.5%? Especially 51.5% for the next 5 years (plus the differential they were out of balance for during the average of that time) and then settling on 50/50 after that? That's completely fair and reasonable to the point of being generous.

Wouldn't you agree? That certainlly seems fair to me, whether its 1 job or 1000 jobs.
To add to the egregiousness list: DALPA did not even want to file this grievance. It was entirely politically driven by DALPA knowing the optics would be horrible if they didn't even file. Prior to the filing, all the DALPA publications actually tried to make the case that the imbalance wasn't that big a deal, and there was not a single publication showing any outrage at the blatant violation of our contract. None.

DALPA wants this forgiven. If they can roll it into C2015, they absolutely will. If they can't (because the company refuses to give a settlement of the grievance any value), DALPA will provide a very poor defense at the grievance hearing so that a loss is ensured. Why? Because they never believed in the grievance from the beginning.

Carl

rube 05-27-2015 11:32 AM
Egregious! I am egreged!

qball 05-27-2015 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by rube (Post 1889926)
Egregious! I am egreged!
I want a bag tag!

OldFlyGuy 05-27-2015 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1889843)
Yeah, I do know that, but I was wondering if you had any references for it other than just forum hyperbole. The only thing I have on it is the Scope analysis PP slides frot he May MEC meeting and it is a little vague. Things on here tend to get blown out of proportion. Hard to believe, I know.
?What part of "we filed a grievance" don't you understand? Its math and if they are .0001 out of compliance it violates our contract, much less if its been 3ish years. DAL hasn't fixed the problem. DALPA has grieved it. OFG


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:47 PM.
Page 492 of 1030
« First
392
442
482
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
502
542
592
992
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


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