Details on Delta TA
05-27-2015 | 10:19 AM
#4911
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
PWA Scope
From Section 1 SCOPE of the PWA dated January 23rd, 2015
B. Definitions
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.
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:
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.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
05-27-2015 | 10:41 AM
#4913
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
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'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.
05-27-2015 | 10:59 AM
#4915
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
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.
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.
05-27-2015 | 11:01 AM
#4916
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 3
From: Lowest Pay I Could Find
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.
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.
05-27-2015 | 11:14 AM
#4917
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
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.
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.
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
05-27-2015 | 03:35 PM
#4920
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
