noserider76

What some of our fellow employees don't realize is that DALPA is the only thing in the way of the company getting unlimited large regional jets and outsourcing an even larger portion of our flying to our "partners". Of course these "partners" have gate agents, mechanics, flight attendants, rampers etc. who will do the job for a lot less than you will, so your services may no longer be required.

This has been a huge contributor to ruining our once proud company. We now have very little quality control over the multitude of companies flying our passengers. The customer doesn't realize it was Mesa or Comair for the most part. They just know they purchased a ticket on Delta. These airplanes are also very inefficient compared to a full size plane and have led to gridlock at many airports.

How much flying is now accomplished by others carriers where we just slap the Delta name on the side? I know my department is over 30% smaller than 5 years ago thanks in large part to our outsourcing.

So when you see that 70 seat RJ flown by the low bidder with the Delta name on the side, think about the Delta pilot, flight attendant, or mechanic that used to handle that flight and is no longer with the company. If your junior in any department now, your job may very well be on the chopping block.

To all our customers: thank you very much for your continued business. It is very much appreciated.

gilpin

I spent some time researching this and exactly what may happen is unclear. Although I am certainly no lawyer, this is what I have garnered:

1. Some think the bankruptcy court can actually prevent the union from striking as part of the Ch. 11 "protection". Most lawyers seem to agree that the union can strike.

2. The first stated purpose of the RLA is "To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier ".

3. The "status quo" to be preserved starts "From the time a request to establish a board is made". Therefore if the strike follows the court's granting of DL's 1113 request, the "status quo" includes the abrogation to the extent granted.

4. The question of whether the RLA cooling-off provisions apply at all in this situation is undetermined. The (non-DL) FA union has strongly argued that it does not. Some lawyers are convinced it does. Only an actual court case can give the answer.

5. There is some thought that the bankuptcy court itself might force DL labor and management into real negociations rather than simply granting management's request. I was unable to discern if the court possibly would or even could resolve the matter with binding arbitration. The RLA does have arbitration provisions, however it is also unclear how those might come into play, if at all.

The bottom line is that if the court grants the 1113 request and the pilots strike, DL is probably doomed. The RLA (or an order of the court) would only prolong the agony by requiring the pilots to work an additional 60 days.

Those days might be helpful in transitioning the nation's air traffic system into a configuration which accounts for the new reality, however. Certain markets in the U.S. (especially in the Southeast) might have their econmies whipsawed if DL were grounded with no advance notice. After the spate of hurricanes that is hardly what is needed.

Imposition of the cooling-off period in this situation would be regrettable since it would infringe on the rights of the pilots, if only for a brief time. But it may be justifiable by avoiding the harm not imposing the cooling-off period might inflict. And transportation workers do have some limitations not imposed on others. (We could have a long side discussion about that, but it seems pointless)

I know that the younger or less senior DL pilots are neither underworked nor overpaid. I'd also guess they are the least likely to vote for a strike and would suffer first if one is called. That being said, "compelling" a group of very highly paid, highly privileged pilots to work an additonal 60 elapsed days (the actual number of days being worked being (for senior pilots active in DALPA) a medium to small percentage of that)) is hardly "unconscionable". The world is full of true horrors; that is not one of them.

HeathrowGuy

"3. The "status quo" to be preserved starts "From the time a request to establish a board is made". Therefore if the strike follows the court's granting of DL's 1113 request, the "status quo" includes the abrogation to the extent granted.

4. The question of whether the RLA cooling-off provisions apply at all in this situation is undetermined. The (non-DL) FA union has strongly argued that it does not. Some lawyers are convinced it does. Only an actual court case can give the answer.

5. There is some thought that the bankuptcy court itself might force DL labor and management into real negociations rather than simply granting management's request. I was unable to discern if the court possibly would or even could resolve the matter with binding arbitration. The RLA does have arbitration provisions, however it is also unclear how those might come into play, if at all."


3./4. Mandating a status quo situation after 1113(c) is granted would likely be considered unconscionable - it gives absolute bargaining power to management. Furthermore, we simply do not force people to work based on terms they did not agree to.

5. A Section 1113(c) abrogation must satisfy a nine-part test that necessarily requires "real" good-faith negotiations, especially on the part of Delta.

DHAST

Deadheading isn't the term you are looking for. Depending on the context, commuting or "jumpseating" is what you want. I honestly don't know what agreements exist amongst carriers internationally. Even in the US, the FAA cracked down after 9/11 about who gets cokpit access. They started by limiting it to company pilots or their regional affiliates, so other airline pilots "jumpseat" but have to ride in the passenger cabin. What one would do is either buy a ticket or use an industry discounted ticket if they could not fly on "their" airline.

Even domestically, commuting sucks. There is a lot of juggling to do, and for commutes of any great length, you pretty much burn a day off on both ends of the commute. Whether or not an overseas commute is practical depends on the schedule the pilot has, the flights between his residence and domicile, and how many times per month he has to do the commute.

HRDiva

Each airline has their own jumpseat policy. For some that fly internationally, the rules differ on those flights than on domestic flights. For example, CO has a list of carriers that are approved for the international jumpseat--but in the cabin only.

Now airlines participating in the CASS system will allow off-line pilots back into the cockpit on the jumpseat. So, even though CO is in the CASS system, an off-line pilot can fly in the cockpit domestically only since their international rule is different.

gilpin

3./4. This is a determination which would be made by the courts. Since this is an unresolved point, if one were to replace the operative word "likely" with the more accurate word may, then I would agree.

Furthermore, as I pointed out before, individuals are free to stop work whenever they see fit. But the dispute would be between a corporation and a union! Any back to work order issued by the courts would order DALPA to cease and desist the strike action, not individual pilots.

5. DAL will argue that they did make a good faith effort before filing the 1113 request while DALPA will contend it was a sham. To have "'real' good-faith negotiations" both parties must act in good faith, not "especially" (read only) one. The court must decide.

My point in #5 was that the bankruptcy court might involve itself in resolving the labor dispute rather than simply granting Delta management's petition. In that scenario there would probably never be a court test of whether the cooling-off period specified in the RLA applies.

HeathrowGuy

Delta can claim that anything happened BEFORE filing the 1113(c) motion - the nine-part test necessarily requires good-faith negotiation by the Debtor AFTER filing and before a judge can grant permanent relief.

BTW, there is no possibility of judicial arbitration or partial contractual relief under 1113(c) - the contract is either upheld in its entirety or abrogated in its entirety, with the Debtor free to impose any contractual terms it deems necessary to facilitate reorganization.

gilpin

Which constitutes the banruptcy court becoming involved in settling the dispute - as I said.

"No possibility"? Think again. A party which can exercise veto power over both sides has a pretty big stick to wield if they choose. The court may not be able to impose a de jure settlement. As a practical matter however, imposing a de facto settlement is well within their power.

HeathrowGuy

In regard to the requirements of that section [1113], courts have historically applied the nine-part test enunciated in In re American Provision Co., 44 B.R. 907, 909 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1984):

1) The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union;

2) The proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal;

3) The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization;

4) The modification must provide that all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably;

5) The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal;

6) The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal;

7) The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith;

8) The union must have refused to accept the proposal without good cause; and

9) The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

Furthermore, the only relief specified under 1113(c) is *rejection* of the CBA - discretion to entertain anything less than rejection for permanent relief has been removed from the judge. IOW, there is no settlement or de facto arrangement for the judge to impose - if the parties do not reach agreement, the judge applies the post-filing nine-part test and, if the test is fulfilled, rejects the CBA in its entirety.

gilpin

You totally missed my point, I never said anything about permanent relief. Let's see if this is clearer:

1. The court has the power to rule for either party. They have this power because the determination of what constitutes "good faith", "reasonableness", "good cause", etc. is within their domain.

2. Neither the management nor the union want the other party to prevail.

3. This gives the court great leverage in convincing the parties to come to an agreement which does not entail abrogation of the CBA, but rather its ammendment.

You will probably say that such a process wouldn't constitute "partial contractual relief under 1113(c)". That is why I used the phrase "de facto", because the settlement would be reached under the 1113 process.

Now I don't know whether the court would choose to use their power in this way. But is it possible? Absolutely!

keeton

The "huge contributor to ruining our once proud company" is losing $10,000,000,000. Plain and simple. Due to competitive pressures from LCC's and a customer base now used to low fares as the norm, you can't raise fares so you must lower costs. If DALPA interfered with DL's cost cutting then it potentially had to come out of other (including your's) departments.

Let's not forget on the other end of the spectrum, where the greedy DALPoids put a stop to DL's acquisition of the 777s. DL probably could have had a better (and more profitable) international program already in place had it not been for those bloodsuckers.

As a FF/SM member for over 20 years and Platinum for 8 of them, you're welcome. I sincerely hope DL recovers from the reorganization as once again a proud (if different) company.

jimrpa

I gather from your post that you are a pilot for Delta Air Lines. I really do appreciate a pilot braving the wilds of this board to provide us with another perspective. I certainly won't even pretend to know what the solution is, but the end result I personally want to see is that Delta is able to continue as an on-going concern and is somehow able to leverage their tradition of graciousness, hospitality and general friendliness to their benefit. I think if you glance through the posts on this board, you'll find almost all of us have identified Delta's front-line folks (and I certainly include pilots in that category, although I don't deal directly with them as often as I do FAs or GAs) as one of Delta's greatest strengths. I hope that strength isn't lost during Delta's attempts to reorganize.

HeathrowGuy

It's not even a de facto exercise of judicial power - the parties ALWAYS have the ability to reach an agreement at anytime, despite the presence or absence of an 1113(c) motion. The courts always want the parties to reach a consensual agreement whenever possible - however, 1113(c) establishes a timeframe in which negotiations can take place and in which the judge must rule against the motion or else a default presiumption in favor of the debtor takes effect.

gilpin

Yes, and the bank teller ALWAYS has the ability to hand the customer all the cash in the drawer, even if a gun isn't being held to her head.

vinnmann

Deleted