I believe he said "The lowest operating costs" in the nation for 70/90 seat jets. Take from that what you want. The term "crew wages" was never mentioned.
Just to clarify, if Skywest was to fly anything larger than 70-seats, Delta would have to cancel their codeshare. DALPA would not have to sue, they would simply have to grieve it if DAL broke our contract, and we would win. There are no loopholes, the language is clear and unambiguous.
I won't debate the merits of such a clause, I simply posted in the interest of accuracy. Skywest may in fact be buying 717's, but if they are, they are doing it with the knowledge that they will lose their contract with DAL (and probably UAL, though I am not familiar with their contract, nor what it will look like in the near future).
Cant remeber which D regular said it, but it would be open for revue, It would not mean cancellation automatically. Again I wonder why the Dalpa feels its their perview to try to threaten to CX SkyWests contract should we fly 70s or larger for UA. No one can give me an answer other than to say its in the contract. UA had a no furlough clause I believe. I think D has one also. If true it shows you what the worth of the contract really is. I take no pleasure in seeing you on the streets. Falling back to the contract is like hiding behind a piece of paper with no regard to what is happening around you.
The "no furlough" section of our contract excused compliance in the event of certain occurances. The 70-seat limit has no such language. It is not open to interpretation, or review.
Could the company ask for relief? Of course. That does not mean, however, that we would grant it. I guess that remains to be seen, if in fact the rumors are true (which, more often than not, they aren't).
P.S.
Our furloughees saw the value of a contract today with the announced ruling.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.