Bucking Bar

Not to change the subject, but what is the time line with the DPA? We are currently beginning preparations for contract 2012. If we had a representational vote and ALPA appeal, we are talking, what 2015 or later for a contract?

Demographically, the DPA is going to have to get a move on. If it continues to languish the timing will delay the contract that our senior pilots are counting on in the home stretch towards retirement.

sailingfun

It was in fact the last item negotiated. What you have to consider however is that the aircraft was already permitted under LOA 46 and already in service with Delta with 69 seats. The question was would a judge make Delta fly the aircraft around with less then optimal seating while trying to emerge from Chapter 11. I don't think that was a issue we were going to win. The agreement also increased the numbers but again I think the judge would have ruled for the Company. Remember that shortly before Delta management had somehow managed to have Judge Prudance removed from the case and her replacement was a hard core anti labor Bush judge.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.

sailingfun

DPA had a timeline on their website. They stated that they needed to have the votes to call for a election by 31 Dec 10 in order to have enough time to get the election done and be in place this summer. They also referenced the need to be in place by summer in order to build a war chest for the contract.
When they did not meet their timeline it looks like they simply pulled it from the website.

tsquare

DPA's death will be quiet and hardly noticed in Herndon....

DAWGS

"If we vote no, the contract will be thrown out" is what I heard time and time again from both sides. I heard that also from management types after 9-11, basically end-game in bankruptcy. IOW, it was the main play in their playbook. I believe we should have walked away at the negotiating table and tested it. If the company wants to throw out the contract over 76 seats, let them try. We would then exercise our rights under the RLA. You may argue the judge would force us back to work. I believe we could have fought and won that battle.

My point is that once management and the judge saw the resolve, they would have dropped the 76 seat request. Six seats wasn't worth possible liquidation. We blinked, they didn't. Just because they buy airplanes with that capability, doesn't mean we are obligated to give them what they ask for. I remember the same scenario in C2K with the 70 seater. You are using the same logic that the Malone admin used. An admin, you are often critical of regarding scope, yet you seem to overlook LM's admin.

There was nothing that said they couldn't fly them, the issue was who flies the 76 seater. There were many mainline furloughees that would have gladly taken that seat.

It's all water under the bridge and many ifs and buts from both sides of the argument. I am not saying I am 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.

FrankCobretti

I just got a very nice and thoughtful e-mail response from him. Highlights:

"I recorded a video last week that further addresses scope. It should be in
your V-file soon."

"We will work to continue the current trends: increasing mainline (domestic and international) ASMs, increasing mainline aircraft and hiring pilots. "

80ktsClamp

I heard that something like this was going to be coming out.

How much you want to bet that Carl is still going to be ticked at the video?

sailingfun

First I voted no on the agreement for many reasons. However I am not sure what rights you think we had under the RLA. We did not have the right to strike even if the judge imposed a contract. You have a right to strike if management imposes a contract after going through the normal negotiations process. That does not apply in a 1113 situation. The judges first priority is to the creditors. The company was asking him for 86 seats. I think they would have been granted that. As many have pointed out it would have been very hard to push that back down in the next contract. The judge would have never made them fly around a 76 seat aircraft with 7 missing seats. We made the big mistake in allowing the aircraft under LOA 46.

80ktsClamp

Why don't any of the union types ever say this? All we ever hear (from BK and such) is a justification of the actions, and never any admission of fault or that it was not a good choice.

That is a good 80% of my issue with them... not taking any fault= they have the complete inability to see what was wrong with the actions taken, and following from that the inability to make corrective action in the future.

johnso29

He will find something wrong with it.