JV Scope.
08-24-2016 | 10:09 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,836
Likes: 175
From: window seat
They have been in and out of compliance with the production balance on a month to month basis. The exact numbers are posted on the DALPA website on a quarterly basis. Last time I looked they were very slightly out of compliance. Around .5%. The continued drawdown in average fleet size by AF/KLM may put them in compliance before the measurement period is over.
Unlike some, I'm not against JV's. I get it. The thought that we can fly the globe, including 100% of all flights to every single country, is just silly.
However we need comprehensive protections to insure we get our fair share. Those protections need to be multifaceted, and include job protecting floors in every theatre, individual partnerships, ESK's and Block Hours. All of those metrics need to be protected. There can be only one reason the company wants even more "flexibility" than they currently have, which is WAY too much; they want to reduce our jobs further.
And half is HALF. Not several percent below half with some asinine "plus or minus X% nonsense"...which is ALWAYS minus, isn't it. And noncompliance should be harshly punished.
All they do, and I mean ALL they do, is sit around planing plotting and stressing over how they can move every single passenger humanly possible onto foreign metal instead of us. Our scope is the only thing saving our jobs, those of all the other work groups, our brand and really our airline as we know it. They can be given absolutely zero additional "flexibility". Its time to tighten international scope all across the board, not just one metric they can exploit as they see fit.
08-24-2016 | 11:28 AM
#22
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
I have no position or title in this industry that might convince you of any argument that I might make. And my intent is not hyperbole or to lie, but no offense taken. I am not posting to support the dalpa or the dpa line like most.
In the example of the latest JV settlement, my progression in the past 4-5 years would be a perfect anecdotal picture of damages incurred by the dal JV transgression. Many factors also impact seniority seat/acft progression, but the argument can be made that my 'negative progression' in the same seat for 4-5 years is a result of less organic expansion and greater reliance on JV/codeshare. Like the 2% effect argument made by dalpa last year wrt line check pulls, my negative progression should have a negative effect on progressions junior to me. The level of that effect could also be argued.
Was it worth ~$30m to the dal pilot? Dalpa says yes, and no one could argue that I have more information than dalpa to cost anything, failure to adhere to JV or AIPs, with greater accuracy.
Another aspect that must be argued, might be, will the pilot pay rates suffer with increased exposure to direct comparison to the global industry rates? Did dalpa provide that comparison to us? If it is unfavorable, our rates would suffer with the direct comparison and we would suffer lack of growth for better contract, I would concede.
If dalpa does not consider JV to be a negative to our contract and progression, they should ignore this... WHEREAS the airline pilot profession, and in particular members of ALPA, are now, have been, and will be subject to increasing threats from various international schemes intended to defeat or avoid Labor Protective Provisions, as well as the increasing reliance by the industry on JOINT VENTURE and similar agreements, and...
I would also welcome more information to make better judgements, but dalpa requires that I rely on only the information they provide(or the information I find for myself). The majority of pilots are working ever increasing hours these days, how much time are they spending educating themselves on information not specifically provided for them by dal/dalpa?
In the example of the latest JV settlement, my progression in the past 4-5 years would be a perfect anecdotal picture of damages incurred by the dal JV transgression. Many factors also impact seniority seat/acft progression, but the argument can be made that my 'negative progression' in the same seat for 4-5 years is a result of less organic expansion and greater reliance on JV/codeshare. Like the 2% effect argument made by dalpa last year wrt line check pulls, my negative progression should have a negative effect on progressions junior to me. The level of that effect could also be argued.
Was it worth ~$30m to the dal pilot? Dalpa says yes, and no one could argue that I have more information than dalpa to cost anything, failure to adhere to JV or AIPs, with greater accuracy.
Another aspect that must be argued, might be, will the pilot pay rates suffer with increased exposure to direct comparison to the global industry rates? Did dalpa provide that comparison to us? If it is unfavorable, our rates would suffer with the direct comparison and we would suffer lack of growth for better contract, I would concede.
If dalpa does not consider JV to be a negative to our contract and progression, they should ignore this... WHEREAS the airline pilot profession, and in particular members of ALPA, are now, have been, and will be subject to increasing threats from various international schemes intended to defeat or avoid Labor Protective Provisions, as well as the increasing reliance by the industry on JOINT VENTURE and similar agreements, and...
I would also welcome more information to make better judgements, but dalpa requires that I rely on only the information they provide(or the information I find for myself). The majority of pilots are working ever increasing hours these days, how much time are they spending educating themselves on information not specifically provided for them by dal/dalpa?
I think the $30 million is gonna bite us in the *** at some point. First off, it's chump change, and secondly it sets precedence. If we seek damages in the future for JV non compliance, the company can aruge that we haven't been damaged as evidenced (apparently) by "growth" in LA and SA over Europe and the previous award. Even if they lose, it's chump change to pay another $30 mil to 15,000 pilots.
One reason I started this thread was to help educate both myself and others because there are some guys that are really switched on to the sausage factory and could provide valuable information. That is what APC used to be was a good place for information until it became a monkey **** fight.
Good post, thanks.
08-24-2016 | 11:35 AM
#23
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
However we need comprehensive protections to insure we get our fair share. Those protections need to be multifaceted, and include job protecting floors in every theatre, individual partnerships, ESK's and Block Hours. All of those metrics need to be protected. There can be only one reason the company wants even more "flexibility" than they currently have, which is WAY too much; they want to reduce our jobs further.
And half is HALF. Not several percent below half with some asinine "plus or minus X% nonsense"...which is ALWAYS minus, isn't it. And noncompliance should be harshly punished.
And you are absolutely right. Trying to have a SWA style scope clause where every DAL passenger flies on DAL metal is silly. (I'll betcha that the SWA scope clause fails in the next contract if not this one). So PS is the about the only way other than maybe management style stock options at this point where we can recapture some of that loss.
What say you?
08-24-2016 | 12:11 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,019
Likes: 193
This is factually incorrect. They "bought" compliance to 48.5% for the period before March 2015 in exchange for the $30m. The clock hasn't been reset. They don't get a free pass for the next 3 years. They are still on the hook for 2016, 17, 18 etc. The rumor that we don't measure again until 2018 keeps being recycled on the forums and is wrong. Every March they look back three years for compliance.
08-24-2016 | 12:18 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
From: 76-400A
"But rejoice, we have 14 month captains! TIC."
Precisely why I qualified my situation. If the impact of less WB flying at dal is cushioned by other factors, is it of consequence in the short term for them?
Unfortunate that fewer of these folks will probably see WB flying if that is their desire.
Precisely why I qualified my situation. If the impact of less WB flying at dal is cushioned by other factors, is it of consequence in the short term for them?
Unfortunate that fewer of these folks will probably see WB flying if that is their desire.
08-24-2016 | 02:29 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,884
Likes: 199
Ahhhhh here is a good argument. ESK vs block hour. IF one believes that the 747 is dead, and the 380 is DOA, one has to ask what will AF/KLM replace them with. My gut tells me that since the Ex/Im bank is still alive, they are gonna be buying big 777s. So, maybe the ESK argument is better for us. But... if they don't, and go Airbus, we are in the same boat as they but block hours would be more advantageous to us due to similar size airframes. The thing that I found outrageous in TA15 was the immediate drop to 50/50 on block hours (from our then current 52%) and a further reduction to 49% "grace". That was asinine. So how do we fix that?
And you are absolutely right. Trying to have a SWA style scope clause where every DAL passenger flies on DAL metal is silly. (I'll betcha that the SWA scope clause fails in the next contract if not this one). So PS is the about the only way other than maybe management style stock options at this point where we can recapture some of that loss.
What say you?
And you are absolutely right. Trying to have a SWA style scope clause where every DAL passenger flies on DAL metal is silly. (I'll betcha that the SWA scope clause fails in the next contract if not this one). So PS is the about the only way other than maybe management style stock options at this point where we can recapture some of that loss.
What say you?
The AF 747's are long dead and have been replaced so it's a bit of a non issue. The KLM 747 are being replaced at the moment with 787's.
We are still doing about 55% of the total flying. If at the end of the next measurement period they are out of compliance I expect another grievance to be filed. .5% out of compliance is less then one flight per day.
08-24-2016 | 03:02 PM
#27
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Which indicates the severity of the concern. This minimal non-compliance could and should be very easily fixed with a small correction but the company refuses. (I may be an odd duck, but I'll vote to strike over this display of bad-faith early and often, it ****es me off)
Would we accept every pilot getting paid .5% less than our agreed rates? How about vacation being cut .5% short or .5% of crew meals being purposely not loaded? Why do we accept routine non-compliance with Section 1? What if we randomly no show'd for .5% of our duty in's? The point is, both we and the company demand compliance elsewhere. Why not scope?
It is not beyond the company's control.
Our MEC changed the policy manual section on the Scope Compliance & Analysis Chairman's job in June but I'm not sure the changes in the job's responsibilities have been implemented yet by the administration.
Would we accept every pilot getting paid .5% less than our agreed rates? How about vacation being cut .5% short or .5% of crew meals being purposely not loaded? Why do we accept routine non-compliance with Section 1? What if we randomly no show'd for .5% of our duty in's? The point is, both we and the company demand compliance elsewhere. Why not scope?
It is not beyond the company's control.
Our MEC changed the policy manual section on the Scope Compliance & Analysis Chairman's job in June but I'm not sure the changes in the job's responsibilities have been implemented yet by the administration.
08-24-2016 | 03:46 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
From: 76-400A
...Would we accept every pilot getting paid .5% less than our agreed rates? How about vacation being cut .5% short or .5% of crew meals being purposely not loaded? Why do we accept routine non-compliance with Section 1? What if we randomly no show'd for .5% of our duty in's? The point is, both we and the company demand compliance elsewhere. Why not scope?
It is not beyond the company's control...
I'll go out on a limb and say there are a lot of 'oddballs' thinking the same way.
08-24-2016 | 06:27 PM
#29
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
The AF 747's are long dead and have been replaced so it's a bit of a non issue. The KLM 747 are being replaced at the moment with 787's.
We are still doing about 55% of the total flying. If at the end of the next measurement period they are out of compliance I expect another grievance to be filed. .5% out of compliance is less then one flight per day.
We are still doing about 55% of the total flying. If at the end of the next measurement period they are out of compliance I expect another grievance to be filed. .5% out of compliance is less then one flight per day.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
