45 U.S.C. §152 perhaps?

Not seeing it. But I did notice that "No carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title."

Pretty hard to argue that this summer wasn't a change to Delta pilot working conditions...amidst Section 6 negotiations.

Meh. I'm also happy to heed the conservative warnings above and take this debate offline...and to the ALPA hospitality suite where it can be settled over free beer!

Fixed the last part for you. 😁

I think some pilots get confused about the term "status quo" and how it applies to us. Whether we are in "Section 6" negotiations or not is irrelevant to the pilot-side of the equation.

45 U.S.C. §152 is, in fact, the statutory reference you were asking for. In it's first section it says:

"It shall be the duty of all...employees to exert every reasonable effort to...maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof."

There is no express "status quo" provision that applies to pilots per se. Let's say, for giggles, we have traveled to Fantasyland and we reach and ratify a new TA next month with an amendable date of December 31st, 2022. Then, next summer, the 4th floor decides to implement Sodomizer v2.0 after determining that we only really need to hire 250 pilots. So....the pain experienced in the "Summer of Love" 2019 is being experienced yet again in July 2020, but even worse. Do you think the pilots could start a "No OT" campaign for August 2020 seeing as we would not be in Section 6 negotiations and, as some pilots believe, therefore not under a "status quo" requirement? I think that trip through the US District Court for the Northern District of GA would end very poorly for DALPA.

As for 45 U.S.C. §156 (which is the codified version for Section Six of the Railway Labor Act), you are correct. That is the statutory provision that states that once negotiations are opened, "rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon."

There may be an argument that while we were in Section 6 negotiations this summer, the Company altered the working conditions (to the detriment of the pilot group) to such an extent that they should be enjoined from doing so again until an agreement is reached but, I think we would find a "Motion Denied" letter in our mailbox if such a case was filed.

I would highly recommend reading the January 18th, 2001 decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Delta Air Lines, Inc v. Air Line Pilots Association. It will give you and those who weren't on property some insight into the Court's perspective on this whole issue.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-...t/1362939.html

An argument could be made that the company's repeated Scope Violations are a explicit violation of Status Quo once we are in Section 6.

The company has engaged in self-help by having partners (owned and within an entity w/ consolidated financials) perform flying Delta pilots should have performed. The fact the company may have lacked the resources to perform the flying and/or may have flown elsewhere is on the Company. The pilots had no say and no control over fleet allocation decisions.

If a party can violate our scope I would like to see a form of relief outside of a small compensatory damage award. I'd rather be granted in-kind relief to engage in a pop up strike. Just shut it down for 24 hours. If we got an actual in kind settlement, THAT would get some attention & result in compliance.

... and this post should not be taken as intent that I don't like flying for Delta. My reasoning for an aggressive defense of our work is that these are good jobs for a great company, which supports tens upon thousands of families and children. We have great customers who notice that service and safety are lacking on some of the owned-entities that serve the routes they were expecting to receive Delta service on. We want to perform our work.

I can't argue against anything you said here, but I will stand by my contention that if service suffers, it WILL drive away customers. ANd THAT is a stupid business method, because everybody knows it costs more to attract customers than to retain them. I agree that guys would ***** if ALVs went to 65, etc etc etc...

Next summer will be interesting. I'm still anxious to see if the LATAM deal actually produces anything good for us outside of CONUS. Not holding my breath however.