DAL TA Section 1: Scope
05-25-2012, 04:27 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
DAL TA Section 1: Scope
Thought it'd be easier to breakdown different sections into their own subtropics.
Since scope is somewhat of a standout issue, thought we could dedicate this thread to picking it apart.
Not looking to have this deteriote into personal attacks, let's leave keep it clean no hits below the belt.
My question is here what prevents an upgauge to the contractual limit of 325 70-76 seaters/125 50 seaters (450 hard cap total), then allow the the ratio to diminish below the minimum (1.56 MBH to DBH).
I'm seeing this line a lot,
Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note X in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance.
That seems like a wild card, unless I'm missing something.
Since scope is somewhat of a standout issue, thought we could dedicate this thread to picking it apart.
Not looking to have this deteriote into personal attacks, let's leave keep it clean no hits below the belt.
My question is here what prevents an upgauge to the contractual limit of 325 70-76 seaters/125 50 seaters (450 hard cap total), then allow the the ratio to diminish below the minimum (1.56 MBH to DBH).
I'm seeing this line a lot,
Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note X in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance.
That seems like a wild card, unless I'm missing something.
05-25-2012, 04:40 PM
#2
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I would be because it does not duty bound them to write the amended CPA's a certain way. It may be in a MOU but I have not found it. Once the contract is agreed to we could argue that they knew the terms of our PWA, and did not include those provisons in the CPA. That takes time. Some will argue that time of a grievance like the Delta Private Jets large cabin biz jets took so long that we allowed them in the pwa. If we uncover non-complaince what is the cure period for something that is unknown or out of their control?
CPA's are legally binding documents, and they can amend the existing ones and they may have language that comes in to effect later that may not be amended. Some say really? Point is that I cannot find it totally spelled out in the PWA on how these agreements will be changed and therefore how non complinace beyond their control will be measured.
It truely could be a non event, but the intent of that phrase if very important for the MEC to nail down. The devil is in the detais.
CPA's are legally binding documents, and they can amend the existing ones and they may have language that comes in to effect later that may not be amended. Some say really? Point is that I cannot find it totally spelled out in the PWA on how these agreements will be changed and therefore how non complinace beyond their control will be measured.
It truely could be a non event, but the intent of that phrase if very important for the MEC to nail down. The devil is in the detais.
05-25-2012, 05:09 PM
#3
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I would be because it does not duty bound them to write the amended CPA's a certain way. It may be in a MOU but I have not found it. Once the contract is agreed to we could argue that they knew the terms of our PWA, and did not include those provisons in the CPA. That takes time. Some will argue that time of a grievance like the Delta Private Jets large cabin biz jets took so long that we allowed them in the pwa. If we uncover non-complaince what is the cure period for something that is unknown or out of their control?
CPA's are legally binding documents, and they can amend the existing ones and they may have language that comes in to effect later that may not be amended. Some say really? Point is that I cannot find it totally spelled out in the PWA on how these agreements will be changed and therefore how non complinace beyond their control will be measured.
It truely could be a non event, but the intent of that phrase if very important for the MEC to nail down. The devil is in the detais.
CPA's are legally binding documents, and they can amend the existing ones and they may have language that comes in to effect later that may not be amended. Some say really? Point is that I cannot find it totally spelled out in the PWA on how these agreements will be changed and therefore how non complinace beyond their control will be measured.
It truely could be a non event, but the intent of that phrase if very important for the MEC to nail down. The devil is in the detais.
Carl
05-25-2012, 05:20 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I would be because it does not duty bound them to write the amended CPA's a certain way. It may be in a MOU but I have not found it. Once the contract is agreed to we could argue that they knew the terms of our PWA, and did not include those provisons in the CPA. That takes time. Some will argue that time of a grievance like the Delta Private Jets large cabin biz jets took so long that we allowed them in the pwa. If we uncover non-complaince what is the cure period for something that is unknown or out of their control?
CPA's are legally binding documents, and they can amend the existing ones and they may have language that comes in to effect later that may not be amended. Some say really? Point is that I cannot find it totally spelled out in the PWA on how these agreements will be changed and therefore how non complinace beyond their control will be measured.
It truely could be a non event, but the intent of that phrase if very important for the MEC to nail down. The devil is in the detais.
CPA's are legally binding documents, and they can amend the existing ones and they may have language that comes in to effect later that may not be amended. Some say really? Point is that I cannot find it totally spelled out in the PWA on how these agreements will be changed and therefore how non complinace beyond their control will be measured.
It truely could be a non event, but the intent of that phrase if very important for the MEC to nail down. The devil is in the detais.
It appears as though the language excuses the company if they can prove that non-compliance was a result of a circumstance beyond their control.
The wording is way to vague to justify non-compliance nevermind the ability to formally penalize.
I'm seeing this wording a lot as I read though this TA.
I may be just getting hung up on the wording, but seems like a gaping hole in this thing.
05-25-2012, 05:21 PM
#5
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Next question: Do we really have downside protection that forces RJ block hours to drive down in the event mainline block hours go down? Answer is: we do NOT. If our union attempted to enforce it, they would face a DFR suit if the affected RJ airline was ALPA. If the company attempted to enforce it (and they won't), they would have no legal basis to complain if the RJ airline in question just said no.
Having language is one thing folks. Having legally binding and enforceable language is quite another. We all witnessed this with the RAH scope abuse. We HAD the language, but our own union said it wasn't defensible in court...but we'll fix it in the next contract. And they did. The continuation of the RAH scope abuse is now part of our section 1...which means it'll be permanent once we vote YES.
Carl
Having language is one thing folks. Having legally binding and enforceable language is quite another. We all witnessed this with the RAH scope abuse. We HAD the language, but our own union said it wasn't defensible in court...but we'll fix it in the next contract. And they did. The continuation of the RAH scope abuse is now part of our section 1...which means it'll be permanent once we vote YES.
Carl
05-25-2012, 05:23 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Many of us have already been victims of such language. We are giving them the rope to hang us with. They will use it against us at the first opportunity....count on it.
05-25-2012, 05:24 PM
#7
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by DeadHead
You'll have to bare with me here ACL, so basically are you saying you can't find anything that penalizes the company in the event of non-compliance on their end?
It appears as though the language excuses the company if they can prove that non-compliance was a result of a circumstance beyond their control.
The wording is way to vague to justify non-compliance nevermind the ability to formally penalize.
I'm seeing this wording a lot as I read though this TA.
I may be just getting hung up on the wording, but seems like a gaping hole in this thing.
It appears as though the language excuses the company if they can prove that non-compliance was a result of a circumstance beyond their control.
The wording is way to vague to justify non-compliance nevermind the ability to formally penalize.
I'm seeing this wording a lot as I read though this TA.
I may be just getting hung up on the wording, but seems like a gaping hole in this thing.
Carl
05-25-2012, 06:20 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 514
Originally Posted by DeadHead
My question is here what prevents an upgauge to the contractual limit of 325 70-76 seaters/125 50 seaters (450 hard cap total), then allow the the ratio to diminish below the minimum (1.56 MBH to DBH).
From what I can read, there are 6 month checks of the ratios in the language, but I don't speak 'lawyerese' enough to understand them.
But forget the ratios for a second.......I'm going to give you a new job on Virginia Ave. You are now in charge of DCI. As CEO, I'm going to tell you that I'm going to take 150 net airframes away from you and remove nearly 6000 seats from your inventory. Now, you tell me how you plan to fly the same amount of outsourced passengers that you currently fly today, much less grow wildly and bust through those ratios.
05-25-2012, 06:32 PM
#9
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Next question: Do we really have downside protection that forces RJ block hours to drive down in the event mainline block hours go down? Answer is: we do NOT. If our union attempted to enforce it, they would face a DFR suit if the affected RJ airline was ALPA. If the company attempted to enforce it (and they won't), they would have no legal basis to complain if the RJ airline in question just said no.
Having language is one thing folks. Having legally binding and enforceable language is quite another. We all witnessed this with the RAH scope abuse. We HAD the language, but our own union said it wasn't defensible in court...but we'll fix it in the next contract. And they did. The continuation of the RAH scope abuse is now part of our section 1...which means it'll be permanent once we vote YES.
Carl
Having language is one thing folks. Having legally binding and enforceable language is quite another. We all witnessed this with the RAH scope abuse. We HAD the language, but our own union said it wasn't defensible in court...but we'll fix it in the next contract. And they did. The continuation of the RAH scope abuse is now part of our section 1...which means it'll be permanent once we vote YES.
Carl
05-25-2012, 06:41 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 514
Originally Posted by DeadHead
My question is here what prevents an upgauge to the contractual limit of 325 70-76 seaters/125 50 seaters (450 hard cap total), then allow the the ratio to diminish below the minimum (1.56 MBH to DBH).
One more thing I meant to add in the post above......you do realize that as of right now, you have absolutely no Ratio protections. Delta management could, if they wanted to, remove all sorts of mainline planes and flying at a whim. So what I get from your question is that because you think there might be some sort of strange loophole in the Ratio protections, you'd rather have none at all......that logic makes no sense to me.
By the way, if managment is so hell bent on drawing down mainline, can you tell me why the brought the DC9s back from the dead and restaffed another category of them? Why are they putting the flat screen mod in the MD88s?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
