Northwest union seeks to halt Delta crew integration

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks, that makes sense since I assume there are differences between PMNW & PMDL that affect the scheduling of F/A's.

Someone, I forget his/her screen name at the moment, and I discussed this very issue last year. The way the PMNW F/A contract language was presented to me - NW F/A's could only fly with NW pilots - it didn't sound as if this had much chance of success for the PMNW FA's - there are no NW pilots any longer so the PMNW F/A's either don't fly or fly with DL pilots no matter which airline the pilots were originally with. I honestly thought that DL would recognize the spirit of the NW contract language and keep PMNW F/A's and pilots together, but I guess DL decided that it was more efficient to do it this way than wait however long it might take for the representational and contract issues to be settled (possibly years).

Jim

 

[BABABOOY]

Thanks, that makes sense since I assume there are differences between PMNW & PMDL that affect the scheduling of F/A's.

Someone, I forget his/her screen name at the moment, and I discussed this very issue last year. The way the PMNW F/A contract language was presented to me - NW F/A's could only fly with NW pilots - it didn't sound as if this had much chance of success for the PMNW FA's - there are no NW pilots any longer so the PMNW F/A's either don't fly or fly with DL pilots no matter which airline the pilots were originally with. I honestly thought that DL would recognize the spirit of the NW contract language and keep PMNW F/A's and pilots together, but I guess DL decided that it was more efficient to do it this way than wait however long it might take for the representational and contract issues to be settled (possibly years).

Jim

Unfortunately (for PMNWF/A'S) the "spirit" in this case will affect the 13,000 F/A's and the 12,000 Pilots that the
AFA doesn't represent.

 

[goneflyin]

As far as I can see, this mostly means that the 777s that leave for Asia every day will have PMNWA flight attendants on board, and the 747s going from ATL to Asia, and JFK to TLV, will have PMDAL flight attendants on board. It seems like a wash. What's the big deal?

(BTW, I'm a Delta pilot, with no preference whatsoever whether the flight attendants choose AFA or not.)

 

[BABABOOY]

As far as I can see, this mostly means that the 777s that leave for Asia every day will have PMNWA flight attendants on board, and the 747s going from ATL to Asia, and JFK to TLV, will have PMDAL flight attendants on board. It seems like a wash. What's the big deal?

(BTW, I'm a Delta pilot, with no preference whatsoever whether the flight attendants choose AFA or not.)

Exactly, Whats the big deal? However as a DL pilot, the AFA wants your seniority list and any pilot movements
to cease and disses.

 

[southwind]

Exactly, Whats the big deal? However as a DL pilot, the AFA wants your seniority list and any pilot movements
to cease and disses.

Are you trying to tell me that the AFA want's the pilots union to do something for them?

What did the AFA do for AMFA when they went on strike ?

...............waiting on the attacks now.......

 

[BABABOOY]

Since the beginning of their campaign, Scope was a huge selling point from the
AFA. They used fear tactics stating that Delta will outsource our jobs and we need the
AFA with their scope clause. Hmmmmmm.....
All those dues paying for what? Scope means nothing....If I were a PMNW f/a, I would be
furious at my leadership because either they have been lying this whole time or they
are extremely inept when writing contracts. The yearly dues could have been put into
a 401K and actually been worth something. Maybe they will have better luck with the
red dress, tie's, and apron for Business class. WTG
Also I guess they can't handle more than one issue at a time:
From the AFA call hotlin April 10, 2010

“In response to recent inquiries regarding the status of the grievance filed over the new Delta pilot contract constituting a violation of LOA 35 (“me too”), you should know your Master Executive Council thoroughly reviewed and discussed this grievance at a recent MEC meeting that included all ten LEC Presidents, your MEC officers, and legal advisors. As a result of the discussion at that meeting, the MEC made the decision that this grievance be considered again at a later date, so we may devote our full attention and resources to the recently filed Scope grievance, which Delta is challenging in Federal Court. Please contact your LEC President or Local Council if you have any questions.”

 

[Kev3188]

I don't understand where your last post is going... You talk about the AFA's Scope, and then post an update saying their appeal of the LOA 35 verdict will be temporarily shelved so they can focus on fighting the Scope grievance.

 

[BABABOOY]

Simple, it means that Scope is dead (Pilots are moving ahead and so is Inflight) and that the AFA isn't the panacea that it claims to be.
It can't handle more than one grievance at a time?

 

[dapoes]

Simple, it means that Scope is dead (Pilots are moving ahead and so is Inflight) and that the AFA isn't the panacea that it claims to be.
It can't handle more than one grievance at a time?

Thats correct, the Red Dress grievance is more important then any silly scope grievance.

 

[Kev3188]

Simple, it means that Scope is dead (Pilots are moving ahead and so is Inflight) and that the AFA isn't the panacea that it claims to be.

Maybe, maybe not, but that' not what I was driving at. You talked about how the AFA talks up the importance of scope, then in the next paragraph deride them for focusing on it. I'm not clear on where you were going is all.

Is the AFA's scope dead? I don;t think so, but I suppose that-like a lot of things-will be decided in court...

It can't handle more than one grievance at a time?

Dunno, but if I was in the AFA, I'd want them to make this a priority over LOA 35...

 

[dapoes]

Dunno, but if I was in the AFA, I'd want them to make this a priority over LOA 35...

More important then a $$$ raise that was supposedly in the AFA NWA (LOA 35) iron clad contract via "me too" clause?

Like Katy Day said in her resignation letter to AFA: Source

Among the numerous AFA transgressions, most importantly are the me-too and scope grievances. AFA has refused to pursue the second me-too grievance to arbitration, citing that it may cost $90,000 to arbitrate and that they would lose votes if they lose the arbitration. This grievance is different than the one AFA already lost, because it addresses substantial unilateral raises the NWA pilots received in November 2008, a clear violation of LOA35.

 

[southwind]

More important then a $$$ raise that was supposedly in the AFA NWA (LOA 35) iron clad contract via "me too" clause?

Like Katy Day said in her resignation letter to AFA: Source

Among the numerous AFA transgressions, most importantly are the me-too and scope grievances. AFA has refused to pursue the second me-too grievance to arbitration, citing that it may cost $90,000 to arbitrate and that they would lose votes if they lose the arbitration. This grievance is different than the one AFA already lost, because it addresses substantial unilateral raises the NWA pilots received in November 2008, a clear violation of LOA35.

The AFA is starting to sound more and more like a politician to me. Instead of doing whats right, pursuing the me-too grievance, they pass on the issue rather than jepordize the votes they get !

What's a politicians job one, when they get elected.......................concentrate on getting re-elected, no matter what !

 

[Kev3188]

More important then a $$$ raise that was supposedly in the AFA NWA (LOA 35) iron clad contract via "me too" clause?

From the link:

"This grievance is different than the one AFA already lost..."

I did not realize there was a second/separate one, and thought the one Bababooy noted was an "appeal" of the original. I stand corrected.

That said, I still contend nothing in a cba matters w/o solid scope language.

 

[dapoes]

From the link:

"This grievance is different than the one AFA already lost..."

I did not realize there was a second/separate one, and thought the one Bababooy noted was an "appeal" of the original. I stand corrected.

That said, I still contend nothing in a cba matters w/o solid scope language.

That may be true but like Katy said:

It is an abomination that AFA would set aside, or in any way delay an arbitration that has the potential of restitution to each one of us of thousands of dollars per year.

If they were to pursue the arbitration and win, then it would have sent a very powerful message to the DAL FA's. Something that can be substantiated and relate too ie: everyone can relate to more $$$ money in their pocket/more food on the table. But to forgo that seems only to peeve off the NWA FA's in hopes that they can win in an election? Doesn't make sense at all. Why not do both? In a recent conversation with one of my NWA FA friends, his jaw hit the floor when he found this out. By not pursuing, they are doing more harm then good.

 

[Kev3188]

If they were to pursue the arbitration and win, then it would have sent a very powerful message to the DAL FA's.

Pure speculation on my part, but perhaps the MEC thought it would be "unwinnable," and decided that pursuing the scope grievance was a better use of the union's resources?