Fleet tracking
07-05-2020, 06:01 PM
#681
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by Meow1215
Yes - however, DALs interpretation is that particular LOA only applied to Compass, which no longer exists. An easy out right now is publicly claim “oh we have 35 parked and thus compliant”. When those planes are needed, the new tune will be “well actually on further research, that deal was with Compass and they are gone.”
I understand allot of you don’t like this news. But don’t take my word for it, go look it up. Keep in mind how many scope violations DAL had last year alone. Don’t think for a minute they will protect bottom end scope just because they habitually disregard top end scope. It’s not holy ground to them.
I understand allot of you don’t like this news. But don’t take my word for it, go look it up. Keep in mind how many scope violations DAL had last year alone. Don’t think for a minute they will protect bottom end scope just because they habitually disregard top end scope. It’s not holy ground to them.
Becuase the LOA clearly states that if the flow down ceases to exist (and it doesn't list any exceptions to why it doesn't exist), then it references PWA section 1 (scope) which states
"...cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B.47. e. will be reduced by 35."
It's black and white that it doesn't just apply to Compass.
07-05-2020, 07:23 PM
#682
Porco Rosso
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,522
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
What's your source for "DAL's interpretation is that particular LOA only applied to Compass"?
Becuase the LOA clearly states that if the flow down ceases to exist (and it doesn't list any exceptions to why it doesn't exist), then it references PWA section 1 (scope) which states
"...cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B.47. e. will be reduced by 35."
It's black and white that it doesn't just apply to Compass.
Becuase the LOA clearly states that if the flow down ceases to exist (and it doesn't list any exceptions to why it doesn't exist), then it references PWA section 1 (scope) which states
"...cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B.47. e. will be reduced by 35."
It's black and white that it doesn't just apply to Compass.
IIRC, DAL's interpretation is straight from the mouth of the DAL MEC chair to the EDV MEC chair.
07-06-2020, 05:10 AM
#683
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by ninerdriver
I don't think we're arguing about what it says.
IIRC, DAL's interpretation is straight from the mouth of the DAL MEC chair to the EDV MEC chair.
IIRC, DAL's interpretation is straight from the mouth of the DAL MEC chair to the EDV MEC chair.
Pilots parse the black and white, and then insist on the black and white wording but that isn't how law works. The black and white on the contract would then be backed up by the intent of the language and then past practice. Law isn't a choose your own adventure book where you find obscure reference that provides what you want.
In this case the people that wrote the language, Delta and Delta pilots, would submit their notes of the intent of the agreement, and the judge would uphold the intent of the language. That's if it was even being challenged.
07-06-2020, 12:10 PM
#684
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by ninerdriver
I don't think we're arguing about what it says.
IIRC, DAL's interpretation is straight from the mouth of the DAL MEC chair to the EDV MEC chair.
IIRC, DAL's interpretation is straight from the mouth of the DAL MEC chair to the EDV MEC chair.
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
Youre on the right track. I can provide a little more to your point
Pilots parse the black and white, and then insist on the black and white wording but that isn't how law works. The black and white on the contract would then be backed up by the intent of the language and then past practice. Law isn't a choose your own adventure book where you find obscure reference that provides what you want.
In this case the people that wrote the language, Delta and Delta pilots, would submit their notes of the intent of the agreement, and the judge would uphold the intent of the language. That's if it was even being challenged.
Pilots parse the black and white, and then insist on the black and white wording but that isn't how law works. The black and white on the contract would then be backed up by the intent of the language and then past practice. Law isn't a choose your own adventure book where you find obscure reference that provides what you want.
In this case the people that wrote the language, Delta and Delta pilots, would submit their notes of the intent of the agreement, and the judge would uphold the intent of the language. That's if it was even being challenged.
As for intenet, I'm only a public school grad, but if the intent was for it to only apply to Compass, then wouldn't it be written as "only Compass" and not "affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier"? Seems the words shows their intent....probably more so than other areas of the PWA that contains copious amounts of legal jargon.
07-06-2020, 04:01 PM
#685
On Guard!
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,181
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
Well if you guys are being told what's contained in the negotiators notes regarding this LOA, that's news to me because our own MEC hasn't shared that info with us.
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
As for intenet, I'm only a public school grad, but if the intent was for it to only apply to Compass, then wouldn't it be written as "only Compass" and not "affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier"? Seems the words shows their intent....probably more so than other areas of the PWA that contains copious amounts of legal jargon.
07-07-2020, 03:22 PM
#686
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,544
Originally Posted by Meow1215
I don’t know what to tel you about that, call your rep maybe? But that information posted was given fact from DAL Mgmt to your MEC and then mine.
This again speaks to DAL Mgmt. as a whole. How compliant are they on top end scope? If they won’t honor top end scope, why should they honor bottom end? Especially when their attitude is “it’s no longer valid”.
This again speaks to DAL Mgmt. as a whole. How compliant are they on top end scope? If they won’t honor top end scope, why should they honor bottom end? Especially when their attitude is “it’s no longer valid”.
07-07-2020, 03:30 PM
#687
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by Iceberg
I get the idea there is some benefit to you and your job that DAL management ignore scope limitations and keep these planes on the table at a regional carrier. I haven’t heard anything from my MEC that they are ignoring it, yet your MEC is fully informed that that’s the case? DALPA would have shared that in a heartbeat with the DAL pilot group, they aren’t shy about putting out all of management’s contractual wrongdoings.
07-07-2020, 05:03 PM
#688
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 147
This isn’t a 9E vs DL issue. The question asked was, “About the flowback and the 35 airplanes, what have you guys heard?” That’s what we heard. We aren’t saying it’s right or wrong, that’s just what we heard.
These 35 airplanes aren’t gonna make it or break it for either the 9E pilots or the DL pilots. Frankly even if they were all eventually parked from 9E and those are the only airplanes we “lost,” that’d be better than many of the alternatives we’ve stared at down the barrel since March.
These 35 airplanes aren’t gonna make it or break it for either the 9E pilots or the DL pilots. Frankly even if they were all eventually parked from 9E and those are the only airplanes we “lost,” that’d be better than many of the alternatives we’ve stared at down the barrel since March.
07-08-2020, 09:10 AM
#689
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Position: Jumpseat
Posts: 92
Jumpseat
Probably not the best place to post this but a quick question for anyone that knows...
I am looking to jumpseat with you folks later this month. Is there any easy way to tell (tail number etc.) which plane has an additional FA jumpseat? I’m with Republic and I know I can’t access the FA jumpseat but just in case there is a 9E pilot that may be able to open the flight deck jumpseat by using the additional FA js. Also, can Delta mainline pilots sit in your FA js or just Delta FAs?
Thanks and look forward to returning the courtesy on one of our planes.
I am looking to jumpseat with you folks later this month. Is there any easy way to tell (tail number etc.) which plane has an additional FA jumpseat? I’m with Republic and I know I can’t access the FA jumpseat but just in case there is a 9E pilot that may be able to open the flight deck jumpseat by using the additional FA js. Also, can Delta mainline pilots sit in your FA js or just Delta FAs?
Thanks and look forward to returning the courtesy on one of our planes.
07-08-2020, 09:27 AM
#690
Porco Rosso
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,522
Originally Posted by Duchess
Probably not the best place to post this but a quick question for anyone that knows...
I am looking to jumpseat with you folks later this month. Is there any easy way to tell (tail number etc.) which plane has an additional FA jumpseat? I’m with Republic and I know I can’t access the FA jumpseat but just in case there is a 9E pilot that may be able to open the flight deck jumpseat by using the additional FA js. Also, can Delta mainline pilots sit in your FA js or just Delta FAs?
Thanks and look forward to returning the courtesy on one of our planes.
I am looking to jumpseat with you folks later this month. Is there any easy way to tell (tail number etc.) which plane has an additional FA jumpseat? I’m with Republic and I know I can’t access the FA jumpseat but just in case there is a 9E pilot that may be able to open the flight deck jumpseat by using the additional FA js. Also, can Delta mainline pilots sit in your FA js or just Delta FAs?
Thanks and look forward to returning the courtesy on one of our planes.
For 900s: any of the XJs have two jumpseats (the gate agent should see ship numbers 4901 through 4937). All of the PQs from 279PQ up have them (9279 through 9337). I can't remember whether the PXs have them, but they probably do (9478 through 9482).
The rest are a crapshoot. If the interior has been redone, then the plane probably has a second jumpseat.
Delta pilots can't use the extra FA jumpseat. The order goes 9E FAs, 9E pilots, and Delta FAs.
Good luck!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
