LAX LEC brief on TA---great read
05-30-2012, 10:12 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Oh, is that to compare with the fallacy you have of the company negotiating more and improving the TA? His "fallacy" has a lot more likelyhood of coming true than your "fallacy" does. If the TA is turned down, don't you think it would be in the company's best in to proceed with their plan B? Here's why, if they agree to better terms if this TA is turned down they are opening themselves up to all future TA's being turned down because "they will always come back and negotiate a little bit better deal." This has far more ranging consequences for management than they might want to deal with...
I just thought the better of it and edited out a cheapshot because it's just not worth it. Try and debate the subject, not harangue and insult people. You've lost the debate when that happens.
Denny
I just thought the better of it and edited out a cheapshot because it's just not worth it. Try and debate the subject, not harangue and insult people. You've lost the debate when that happens.
Denny
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have?
05-30-2012, 10:14 AM
#42
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
If I get what you are asking, you are talking about a major Force Majure event. Any court is going to allow the company to do what they need to do to survive. I have to agree with what Tsquare said days ago with regard to this language, it's standard boiler plate and actually defines some events as NOT being FM. So from that stand point, it restricts the company's ability to claim FM. (I guess my glass is half full today for some reason
)
Under the TA, we don't have any influence with DCI but we do with Delta...
Denny
)Under the TA, we don't have any influence with DCI but we do with Delta...
Denny
Thanks. Must be because we live in the NW thing!
Fiig
05-30-2012, 10:16 AM
#43
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by Columbia
If the LECs voted unanimously, your thought process may be on the mark, however they didnt. Not even close. What you're saying doesn't match up with the numerous LECs who voted no as well as the few who voted yes, but only because they felt it should be left for the pilots to decide.
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have?
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have?
05-30-2012, 10:22 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by FIIGMO
As far as Air Tran pilots. NO. The SLC rep said the deal was between DAL and Boeing. DAL would not enter into any deal that would bring the pilots with them. By dealing with Boeing only it avoids that. Getting it in writing was not asked but I do have a few more things I want to see in writing as well. Not sure if it will work on those points either.
Fiig
05-30-2012, 10:23 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
If I get what you are asking, you are talking about a major Force Majure event.
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
I have to agree with what Tsquare said days ago with regard to this language, it's standard boiler plate and actually defines some events as NOT being FM. So from that stand point, it restricts the company's ability to claim FM.
05-30-2012, 10:26 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by Flytolive
No, actually I am referring to something well short of FM like an economic downturn and/or shrinking the mainline fleet for that or a myriad of other reasons.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios.
05-30-2012, 10:38 AM
#47
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by Columbia
Thx-respect your decision. As to the AT pilots, why not put in writing? No one thought the TWA pilots would be successful in their lawsuit against alpa.
05-30-2012, 11:35 AM
#48
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Flytolive
No, actually I am referring to something well short of FM like an economic downturn and/or shrinking the mainline fleet for that or a myriad of other reasons.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios.
05-30-2012, 02:44 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Columbia
If the LECs voted unanimously, your thought process may be on the mark, however they didnt. Not even close. What you're saying doesn't match up with the numerous LECs who voted no as well as the few who voted yes, but only because they felt it should be left for the pilots to decide.
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have?
Why not direct the cheap shots at them? Do you have unique negotiating insight and skills that they don't have?
Why not direct cheap shots at them? Well, if I actually have to spell it out for you, you won't understand but.....It's called "professionalism." Here is a definition for you from Merriam-Webster: The skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well.
Denny
05-30-2012, 02:51 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Flytolive
No, actually I am referring to something well short of FM like an economic downturn and/or shrinking the mainline fleet for that or a myriad of other reasons.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios.
I disagree. This is unlike any pilot contractual language I have ever seen and appears to offer the company a very easy out by saying the CPAs don't allow them to pull the six seats in case of a furlough or pull DCI capacity to comply with the block hour ratios.
42. “Circumstance over which the Company does not have control,” for the purposes of
33
33
Section 1, means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster;
34 labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a
35 government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel
36 supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial
37 suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the
38 Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war
39 emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s
40 delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over
41 which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other
42 supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the
43 Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current
44 operations.
34 labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a
35 government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel
36 supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial
37 suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the
38 Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war
39 emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s
40 delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over
41 which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other
42 supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the
43 Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current
44 operations.
Notice the bold specifically notes the state of the economy is NOT a circumstance etc.
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
