Delta Furlough Protections
07-04-2013, 06:00 AM
#41
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
Correct. And what a lot of the DALPA-bashers haven't acknowledged is that our new much-lamented contract has a couple of very clever provisions.
1. For starters, for the first time EVER (even during so-called "good" contracts like C2K) we have language that requires the company to park RJs if we reduce mainline flying. Before, we had language that required additional company growth if you GREW the regional flying, but NOTHING that required the company to reduced regional flying in the event of mainline cutbacks. Conceivably in prior contracts they could have eliminated every mainline flight and reduced zero regional ones--they just couldn't INCREASE the regional flying. Now if they reduced mainline flying they must also reduce regional flying.
2. If the company so much as furloughs one pilot, they must remove the extra 6 seats of every 76-seater in the system--the extra 6 seats that they wanted so bad. Further, this provision is NOT subject to force majeure.
It will be very costly and painful for the company to furlough going forward. A blanket "no pilot on the seniority list as of xxxx will be subject to furlough" is a worthless waste of negotiating capital, as the company could just claim force majeure and get around it. Instilling painful financial and operational penalties in the event of furlough is a much better contractual approach.
1. For starters, for the first time EVER (even during so-called "good" contracts like C2K) we have language that requires the company to park RJs if we reduce mainline flying. Before, we had language that required additional company growth if you GREW the regional flying, but NOTHING that required the company to reduced regional flying in the event of mainline cutbacks. Conceivably in prior contracts they could have eliminated every mainline flight and reduced zero regional ones--they just couldn't INCREASE the regional flying. Now if they reduced mainline flying they must also reduce regional flying.
2. If the company so much as furloughs one pilot, they must remove the extra 6 seats of every 76-seater in the system--the extra 6 seats that they wanted so bad. Further, this provision is NOT subject to force majeure.
It will be very costly and painful for the company to furlough going forward. A blanket "no pilot on the seniority list as of xxxx will be subject to furlough" is a worthless waste of negotiating capital, as the company could just claim force majeure and get around it. Instilling painful financial and operational penalties in the event of furlough is a much better contractual approach.
That's a key right there. In addition, the price of oil and fuel are 2 of several things that can not be defined as items beyond the companies control. So when oil shoots up, they can't furlough because of it.
07-04-2013, 06:15 AM
#42
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by johnso29
That's a key right there. In addition, the price of oil and fuel are 2 of several things that can not be defined as items beyond the companies control. So when oil shoots up, they can't furlough because of it.
Could non-revs occupy them?
Might have to clarify whether Non Rev Positive Space could use them. Seems like every flight I DH on has a platoon of regional airline employees positive space to work. Not that I blame them, their jobs move around every few months.
I once asked one of my FO's ... "why do you commute to this job?" He replied, "well it sure as heck isn't worth moving for."
07-04-2013, 06:29 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Not really remove ... just block them off from sale, right?
Could non-revs occupy them?
Might have to clarify whether Non Rev Positive Space could use them. Seems like every flight I DH on has a platoon of regional airline employees positive space to work. Not that I blame them, their jobs move around every few months.
I once asked one of my FO's ... "why do you commute to this job?" He replied, "well it sure as heck isn't worth moving for."
Could non-revs occupy them?
Might have to clarify whether Non Rev Positive Space could use them. Seems like every flight I DH on has a platoon of regional airline employees positive space to work. Not that I blame them, their jobs move around every few months.
I once asked one of my FO's ... "why do you commute to this job?" He replied, "well it sure as heck isn't worth moving for."
Trying to turn it into a non rev benefit would be nice in theory, but very difficult to keep track of and besides, removing them (and then reinstalling them later) is much more expensive, which is partially the point.
07-04-2013, 06:43 AM
#44
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by gloopy
I'd say make them remove them. I don't want us to have to keep track of that. Plus we'd have to have language that forbade deadheaders, FA's with deferred jumpseats, etc. from occupying those seats. Not to mention eventually it would make the news that the evil greedy pilots caused a family hardship case to miss their last Christmas with a dying loved one because of some contract clause forced the plane to leave with 6 open seats and they only needed 2 or whatever.
Trying to turn it into a non rev benefit would be nice in theory, but very difficult to keep track of and besides, removing them (and then reinstalling them later) is much more expensive, which is partially the point.
Trying to turn it into a non rev benefit would be nice in theory, but very difficult to keep track of and besides, removing them (and then reinstalling them later) is much more expensive, which is partially the point.
Actually pulling the seats leads to weight and balance issues, passenger service unit relocations and potentially getting authorization from the FAA. You can just see the memo now "we would recall pilots but it is too expensive ...."
Better furlough protection is UNITY. No one would have been furloughed from Delta had it not been for the decision not to merge ASA / Comair on the bottom of the list. ASA had non permitted airplanes on the property which would have allegedly triggered a merger had it not been for their retirements shortly before ASA's acquisition.
I think it dumb for a union to discriminate against its own members by a completely arbitrary seat limit which is controlled by management. But, that's just my opinion.
07-04-2013, 10:43 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
I still say remove them. And we're talking about 1 row of 4 and one row of 2. One towards the front and one towards the rear = no balance issues. Just a couple odd looking seating gaps. No PSU issues at all unless the company wanted to create them to make the cabin look "even" or whatever. And there's no way they would delay recalls because reinstallation was too expensive. They couldn't trip over themselves fast enough to put more seats in an RJ.
07-04-2013, 06:44 PM
#47
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by china clipper
What's the wording in the contract? That should eliminate this discussion, right?
07-04-2013, 07:17 PM
#48
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by johnso29
Exception one: If a pilot on the seniority list with an employment date prior to September 1, 2001[DOS] is placed on furlough, the Company will convert all 76 seat jets aircraft for operation as 70-seat jets aircraft. The number of such aircraft will continue to be limited by Section 1 B. 40. f. as though they were being operated as 76-seat aircraft. The Company may again commence operating such aircraft as 76-seat aircraft effective on the date that the most junior pilot protected by the first sentence of this Exception one is recalled from furlough.
Johnson,
I think that wording was subsequently updated to include guys hired a lot later than 2001. I believe it includes all 2008, and possibly the 2010 hires as well.
Hell if 2001 was in fact the correct date you could probably furlough 1500 guys before that even kicked in.
Scoop
07-04-2013, 07:39 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by Scoop
Johnson,
I think that wording was subsequently updated to include guys hired a lot later than 2001. I believe it includes all 2008, and possibly the 2010 hires as well.
Hell if 2001 was in fact the correct date you could probably furlough 1500 guys before that even kicked in.
Scoop
I think that wording was subsequently updated to include guys hired a lot later than 2001. I believe it includes all 2008, and possibly the 2010 hires as well.
Hell if 2001 was in fact the correct date you could probably furlough 1500 guys before that even kicked in.
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
