Delta MEC oks more 76 jets...

SoCalAprch

SoCalAprch

Well-Known Member
Saw this somewhere else and thought Id share it here...

Typically, barring a negotiated settlement, grievances are eventually decided by binding arbitration before a neutral third party, often at a point well into the future. While the Association feels confident that our interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e. is correct, there always remain several elements of risk whenever an issue is decided through
arbitration.

After a number of face-to-face meetings and careful consideration, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement which mitigates the litigation risks but more importantly confirm the Association’s interpretation of the PWA and provides real and meaningful additional furlough protection for hundreds of the most vulnerable pilots on our seniority list, very similar to protections already available to more senior pilots.

The Settlement Agreement provides that:

The Company will agree to the Association’s interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e. but provides a one-time exception to this interpretation allowing the Company to operate up to 153 76-seat jets so long as the Company does not furlough any pilot on the integrated system seniority list as of February 9, 2009, the date the agreement was signed. With agreement on the interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e, any further increase above 153 76-seat jets will require substantial mainline fleet growth. For example, for the Company to add a 154th 76-seat jet, the mainline would have to be comprised of 768 mainline jets. Today the mainline fleet consists of 753 aircraft.

If the Company does furlough any pilot on the Integrated System eniority List, then the Company will physically remove six passenger seats from the number of 76-seat jets (in service, undergoing maintenance and operational spares) that exceeds the authorized number of 76-seat jets under the Association’s interpretation of Section 1 B. 40. d. and e.

While the Company will have 90 days from the first furlough to physically remove the seats, such seats will become immediately unusable for any purpose upon the furlough of the very first pilot on the list. It’s important to understand that the agreement is a settlement over an issue of scope language interpretation and not an issue of “scope relief.” Scope language is intended to protect pilot jobs. This agreement enhances job protections for Delta pilots. There has been no change to the scope language in our contract, and this settlement will not increase the number of regional jet hulls; it simply codifies the number of seats that will be allowed in up to 26 of those aircraft. It allows up to a total of 156 seats throughout the system (26 aircraft x 6 seats per airplane = 156) in exchange for furlough protections for hundreds of Delta pilots and their families and definitive agreement on the contractual language moving forward. Further, this agreement does not increase the ceiling on the total number of 70-seat/76-seat jets permitted by Section 1 B. 40. That number remains at 255, and with 153 76-seat jets, the total of 70/76-seat jets will be 224 while the overall number of all regional jets has decreased substantially over the past year.
Click to expand...
 
170.gif
 
Who actually writes these things? Does this make much sense to anyone else? Yeah I think I get it, but reassure me, please.
 
This could have been a big bargaining chip and to give it away for a no furlough clause that effects 26 jets is one of the most asanine things I've heard of in my short little career so far.

It didn't even go to arbitration. Just sorta threw their hands up and gave in.
 
flyingmaniac said:
Who actually writes these things? Does this make much sense to anyone else? Yeah I think I get it, but reassure me, please.
Click to expand...

Allow me to translate:

"The attorneys told us we didn't have a chance in hell of winning this arbitration, in spite of the fact that we know what the intent of the language was, so we have no choice but to settle. If we didn't, then the company would ignore our scope language while we wait for arbitration, so the 76-seaters would be flying around for a couple of years anyway before we ever get an arbitrator's ruling. In other words, this sucks, but hey, we got you a no-furlough clause."​

That's what I got out of it.
 
Nick said:
This could have been a big bargaining chip
Click to expand...

Not really. It sounds as though the company wasn't giving much ground at all, so there probably wouldn't have been any bargaining. It would have gone straight to arbitration.

It didn't even go to arbitration. Just sorta threw their hands up and gave in.
Click to expand...

Arbitrating over scope language is a scary proposition. If you were talking about a serious amount of flying, then I could see it, but arbitrating over a grand total of only 156 seats system-wide? That ain't worth the risk. When you open an issue to arbitration, the arbitrator can come up with some truly wacky things. You could suddenly find yourself stuck with an unlimited amount of 76-seat airplanes. Is it better to give up 156 total seats to avoid that risk? I didn't hear Legal's briefing, but I would imagine that that was their advice. Arbitration isn't something that you take lightly on things like this.
 
PCL_128 said:
Arbitrating over scope language is a scary proposition. If you were talking about a serious amount of flying, then I could see it, but arbitrating over a grand total of only 156 seats system-wide? That ain't worth the risk.
Click to expand...

It is 26 airplanes over.

The thing says, if they furlough, 6 seats come out of each 76 jet that is over the limit -- and there are 26 more than the previous limit (which is now no longer the limit).

Those seats total 156 but the scope limit has been exceeded by 26 aircraft, or as someone on another forum put it, "they don't just accidently go over the scope limit by $500,000,000 worth of RJs."

I still think there has to be something more valuable that could have been gained than a no furlough clause that requires the company to simply take out 156 total seats DCI-wide before furloughing any mainline pilot. Now the chance is gone.
 
PCL_128 said:
Allow me to translate:
"The attorneys told us we didn't have a chance in hell of winning this arbitration, in spite of the fact that we know what the intent of the language was, so we have no choice but to settle. If we didn't, then the company would ignore our scope language while we wait for arbitration, so the 76-seaters would be flying around for a couple of years anyway before we ever get an arbitrator's ruling. In other words, this sucks, but hey, we got you a no-furlough clause."
​
That's what I got out of it.
Click to expand...

LOL. All that PC/exactoididgibirish and they still can't get it right. One slang filled paragraph and I totally get it!
 
Has furlough protection EVER worked? My company had a no furlough clause and 2 months after that was signed into the new contract, they furloughed.


And I just wanted to say:



jtrain609 said:
170.gif
Click to expand...

...word.

I'm going to slap the next mainline guy that accuses me of taking away his flying. IF YOU DON'T GIVE AWAY THE AIRPLANES I CAN'T TAKE AWAY YOUR JOB YOU DUFUS!

On a side note, just one more reason to eject from the industry. Just wait till they start outsourcing 100 seaters - it's coming.
 
So, if they furlough, wouldn't that make the Compass airplanes that the guys would have the option of flowing back into 70 seat jets...or, um, uh oh, is the flow through agreement not gonna survive the NWA/DAL merger?

I just saw my odds of interviewing at Delta decrease by 26 planes.....
 
Stone Cold said:
I just wish more "regional" guys got this. A very true statement!!

I did not say ALL regional guys and gals, just the ones with blinders on...
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming I'm afraid.

Far too many are just happy to have larger airplanes coming to their company while the rest of us are shaking our heads watching our ability to actually earn a decent living in this field disappear slowly.

I wonder what any of our Delta members have to say about this?
 
kellwolf said:
So, if they furlough, wouldn't that make the Compass airplanes that the guys would have the option of flowing back into 70 seat jets...or, um, uh oh, is the flow through agreement not gonna survive the NWA/DAL merger?

I just saw my odds of interviewing at Delta decrease by 26 planes.....
Click to expand...

The Compass one's stay 76 seats. Also there are 15 spots to flow back into Mesaba because we had 15 people flow up to NWA thats in addition to CP. Yes, Flow through is still here for XJ and CP.
I hope there is some * next to this because I don't want to be in my 40's by the time hiring begins again. Wow RJ's suck a bag of balls!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Now, maybe I just look at things different.

Instead of kicking people in the balls, wouldn't it be better to help them achieve contract gains reflective of the equipment that has been handed them? As they are a growing company, that would mean a growing number of appropriately paid jobs, with the associated quality of life.

I believe that RAH is in Section 6 negotiations. So let's support them to get the pay and workrules befitting of a carrier that it is turning into.
 
Polar742 said:
Now, maybe I just look at things different.

Instead of kicking people in the balls, wouldn't it be better to help them achieve contract gains reflective of the equipment that has been handed them? As they are a growing company, that would mean a growing number of appropriately paid jobs, with the associated quality of life.

I believe that RAH is in Section 6 negotiations. So let's support them to get the pay and workrules befitting of a carrier that it is turning into.
Click to expand...

But how does that help me get mine?!?! :sarcasm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top