Incidentally Carl, you have a bit of a habit of shooting inside the circle. I'm a scope hawk, always have been, I consider it the most important part of the contract and want it defended. I agree that ALPA didn't seem to prosecute this one very vigorously. But I have a very hard time seeing how this one could have turned out much differently. If we want vigorous non-monetary penalties for violation of scope, I think those penalties are going to have to be written into the contract language.

Really? This is what you said:

That's a whole lot more than expressing doubt.

I'm surprised this would come from a regional guy like you. Pilots like you were here steadily seven years ago slamming pilots like me for giving up scope and imprisoning you to the regionals. Now you're here and explaining away the fact that we refused to fight a scope violation. Not a scope give away, a scope violation.

I can't think of a case in my career where there was a scope violation remedied by money. I'm certainly not privy to all scope violations, but it really doesn't matter. In an arbitration, it only matters what OUR precedent is, and we just set a new one.

Carl

Although this was not officially included in C15... Is there really any question that this was not traded in part for something within C15? The two negotiating tracks have clearly been conducted in parallel.

I just don't buy that this is a completely compartmentalized transaction.

I've never cared about anybody's circle. If it's wrong, you need to call it out...regardless of circle position.

What you posted is not how I would define a scope hawk.

OK.

As I said earlier, there's no chance if you don't plea for it in the hearings. It's moot now because the precedence is set.

That's incorrect. Contract law allows for any and all penalties for a willful breach. Sometimes it's a monetary penalty and other times it's a remedy called Specific Performance. In other words, honor the contract exactly as written.

Again, all moot now.

Carl

I guess I had no idea how the grievance process works. Who knew there was a reasonable chance a arbitrator might have ordered the entire shutdown of Delta's atlantic joint venture. Billions of dollars in revenue gone. Reservation canceled for ticket reservations numbering in the hundreds of thousands gone. A entire alliance shutdown! A probable loss in stock value in the billions. All because they came in at 47% instead of 48.5% on the EASK. Can you imagine the WSJ articles!

$30 million is a dirt cheap solution when you put it that way.

By settling outside of C2015, the company has set a precedent for valuation on future scope violations. Isolating it from the contract at such a low amount works in their favor. They now have a benchmark for future scope violations as they ramp up the JVs.

Can you tell us how many jobs were lost and about what the value should have been?

Don't take it personally. For some here it's much more about making ALPA/DALPA look bad than the issue itself. Whatever happens it''s too little too late and when we get a great TA they'll try and take credit for it instead of the people really doing the work for us. The agenda is discredit ALPA at every possible juncture.

You also have no idea how the spelling system works, but it doesn't stop you from writing.

The loss of the JV is just one remedy plea that could have been made to force Delta to fly the EASK's required to abide by the contract they signed. But first, you have to actually take it to arbitration as opposed to setting a price on Delta pilot jobs.

Carl