a MAJOR announcement @ SkyWest

[flying4food]

Who gives a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** about anyone's toes? Not I. Everyone for himself, and if it involves bruising egos or exremities, who really gives a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.

And I thought it was the Alaska acquisition announcement...

That's right, the Alaska Board of Director's meeting is this week, what a coincidence. Look for Skywest to buy out Alaska and staple all the Horizon and Alaska pilots to the bottom of the list.

Just to mention a few!!

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ
Please answer my question as to the why. Why does it bother/scare DALPA that they had to have this (restriction on codeshare with airlines operating jets larger than 70 seats) written into the contract? You have dodged the issue. Don't you see it as unfare to SkyWest?

Yes FDJ, answer that question.

The answer is that ALPA negotiated the contract. This part of the contract had nothing to do with FDJ interests, or the interests of any pilot at Delta. It has to do with ALPA National.

ALPA's President has stated that fifty seats is a "natural dividing line" and the Presidents of Bombardier, Dornier, Embraer, Boeing and Aerospatial have reflected that it is impossible for them to market a 70 to 110 seat aircraft in the US due to the restraints placed on the operation of such an aircraft by ALPA and the major pilots' unions. These airplanes are being marketed in Europe, or not being built at all.

It is a clear anti trust problem. ALPA should not be able to decide where airplanes are being flown and what equipment is flown, but it is clearly the case.

Note that when it is in ALPA's interests to operate a regional aircraft with furloughed mainline pilots, ALPA always insists that the same size and weight restrictions are met and the airplanes are operated under a separate operating certificate. All of this exists so ALPA can continue to control the market and keep the undersireable aircraft out.

ALPA does not want the line blurred between the haves and the have nots. This is an internal ALPA problem that they are extrapolating to Skywest.

Skywest should get together with a Manufacturer and file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, or bring private litigation based on a unfair restraint of trade allegation. It is a good case, wish somebody would bring it.

 

[Splert]

The first post was not very helpful.

The second and third posts were clearly being sarcastic.

I am done, have a good day.

Splert

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Sorry guys, I must have missed that question addressed to me. The short answer is that we must have control over whom the company chooses as their codeshare partner. The clause in question gives us that. It prevents mgt from putting our code on other airlines without our permission, and using that to shrink mainline.

Another answer is one that fins already touched on. It is another attempt to curtail the shifting our flying from high paying airlines to those who have traditionally not paid as well, a la freedom. The natural dividing line, while it may not be natural, certainly seems to be necessary. Granted, some may deem it unfair, but the majority in this profession do not want to see some sort of limit to the amount of large airplanes flown by airlines who do not pay as well. We are seeing perfect examples right now with the LCC's of how that practice can damage the profession and lower pay across the industry.

The inevitable question will be why can't the regionals pay what mainline does. People always ask why Delta pilots automatically assume that our pay for certain airplanes would exceed that negotiated by CMR, ASA, etc. The answer is found both in history and in negotiating leverage. The legacy carriers have both on their side. We are working off of a pre-deregulation contract, which allows us to build off gains that took 70 years of pattern bargaining to earn. It is naive to assume that a traditional "regional" carrier could achieve in a few contracts what we achieved in our history. Also, regulation helped as well. You no longer have that advantage. When you factor in the increased leverage we have via our size and ability to shut the entire system down, most would agree that our chances of raising the bar on pay is better. Conversely, your chances of lowering it are also better. Is that a guarantee? Of course not. But it is almost a rule. I would ask those who disagree to name any post deregulation carrier (freight carriers excluded due to differences in their industry forces) with an industry leading contract. factoring in pay, benefits, retirement, etc. There are few out there.

However, the fact that it did not happen in the past does not mean that it could not happen now. If you did get 717's, I would hope that you achieved the best pay in the country. That would help us all. The odds, however, are against you, which is why ALPA (and DALPA) supports that dividing line. The potential to hurt all of us is greater than the potential to help all of us.

Fins keeps advocating a lawsuit (naturally). What he neglects is that ALPA (or DALPA) has done nothing that prevents you from operating any airplane you want (just as we have not prevented Delta from operating all the rjs they want). We do, however, have a contractual and legal right to some control over with whom mgt codeshares. Does the fact that they could not run out and put their code on any other carrier limit that carriers ability to operate? Heck no. If Skywest mgt wants 717's, they can buy as many as they want and we could not do a thing (which is why any suit would be doomed to failure). We would, however, then have a right to force OUR mgt to stop putting OUR code on your flights.

Would we do that? I don't know. It would naturally depend on a lot of factors. The short answer to the original rumor, and the only reason that I even entered this thread, is that we COULD do that. There is no grey area to that section of our contract, and absent a BK judge throwing our contract our (which doesn't seem likely, at least in the forseeable future), Delta would be forced to comply. The language is clear and unambiguous. Would we allow them to violate it. I guess that remains to be seen (IF, of course, the rumor has any validity).

 

[~~~^~~~]

It prevents mgt from putting our code on other airlines without our permission, and using that to shrink mainline.

And if Skywest is operating their airplanes under a non DL code - how does that allow Delta management to shrink mainline?

Clearly the effect of your contract is to reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace. Management shares your interest in reducing competition. Everyone benefits, right?

Well, what about the consumer. The consumer is who is law is designed to protect.

What your contract does is establish a horizontal restraint on trade. It goes beyond labor protections by establishing a de facto size limit on aircraft Skywest, or as your contract reads, any commercial air carrier, can operate - if they in any way, under any separate subsidiary, perform any service for Delta.

I don't argue with the intent of DALPA, but clearly the contract is too broad to be legal and is not enforceable if challenged.

Oh, by the way, I thought you wrote that the RJDC suit was going to be dismissed. What happened?

 

[sleepy]

And if Skywest is operating their airplanes under a non DL code - how does that allow Delta management to shrink mainline?

Clearly the effect of your contract is to reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace. Management shares your interest in reducing competition. Everyone benefits, right?

Well, what about the consumer. The consumer is who is law is designed to protect.

What your contract does is establish a horizontal restraint on trade. It goes beyond labor protections by establishing a de facto size limit on aircraft Skywest, or as your contract reads, any commercial air carrier, can operate - if they in any way, under any separate subsidiary, perform any service for Delta.

I don't argue with the intent of DALPA, but clearly the contract is too broad to be legal and is not enforceable if challenged.

Oh, by the way, I thought you wrote that the RJDC suit was going to be dismissed. What happened?

No, it does not limit Skywest's size. They can do anything they want to, they just can't keep the DAL flying if they want to compete with DAL by flying aircraft that are prohibited by the agreement between Skywest and DAL.

Who is going to challenge this? Skywest can't because they agree to the terms of the contract they signed with DAL. I'm sure that they can terminate the contract, both parties have an out clause. The Skywest pilots? Hummm, I'm not a lawyer but I don't know what standing they would have in this matter. The RJDC, maybe, are Skywest pilots going to become RJDC members?

If the DAL PWA did not have this provision, ASA and Comair would be flying 777's, this is the basis of the scope clause. This is wat the RJDC people want.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Oh, by the way, I thought you wrote that the RJDC suit was going to be dismissed. What happened?

I never wrote that that steaming pile of manure you call a lawsuit would be dismissed. I wrote that you would lose. You will.

 

[Russ]

I am not sure this provision would pass the sniff test in court. Yeah, I know its been reviewed ad nauseam by D and ALPA, but I wonder how it would do in a court of law as oppossed to a court of public(pilot) opinion.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Why wouldn't it? Despite what fins says, Skywest is free to operate whatever airplanes they want. Delta is free to choose their codeshare partners. Delta has agreed to give us a say in that matter. It is perfectly legal.

 

[Russ]

I say that because of an unpalatable level of coercion exists. I don't feel like looking through all your posts, so to paraphrase you, SkyWest is free to operate larger jets for UA, but it comes at the cost of losing the contract with Delta. That is not even implied, its an out right threat. I know you don't speak other than for yourself, I however can see the writing on the wall. What SkyWest does with another company should be of no concern to you. You would much rather have SkyWest or any other large regional working for you than against you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

It is not a threat, it is a condition of doing business with us, one your mgt knew all along. To imply otherwise makes it seem much more ominous than it really is.

Within any business relationship exists certain conditions which must be met. Those conditions are neither threats, nor illegal coercion. They are merely rules which must be followed. Not doing so could lead to the ending of that business relationship.

Let me give you an example. I own a building. You want to rent an apartment from you. The lease specifies no pets, and you agree to that clause. If halfway through the lease, you were to get a pet, would I then be justified to terminate our relationship? Regardless of whether or not I was justified in banning pets, you knew that they were banned, and agreed to the terms. Would I be threatening you if I reminded you of your lease if I saw you in the pet store?

The point is, if you want to move out, you can have all the pets you want!

 

[embdrvr]

We are working off of a pre-deregulation contract, which allows us to build off gains that took 70 years of pattern bargaining to earn.

Now if you could just get the LCC competition to pay their pilots the same kind of money......

Or what about bringing back 1960's style regualtion of the industry?

Is that pre-deregulation mindset a good or bad thing?

How long did dinosaurs roam the earth before their eventual demise?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Now if you could just get the LCC competition to pay their pilots the same kind of money......

Or what about bringing back 1960's style regualtion of the industry?

Is that pre-deregulation mindset a good or bad thing?

How long did dinosaurs roam the earth before their eventual demise?

I agree with your first line.

Regarding the second line, I think that deregulation was great for the consumer, lousy for the profession.

What do dinosaurs have to do with this conversation. Are you predicting the demise of Delta? High pay? I wouldn't put any money on either. We've been down this road before, and came out ok. We will do the same this time.

 

[embdrvr]

What do dinosaurs have to do with this conversation. Are you predicting the demise of Delta? High pay? I wouldn't put any money on either. We've been down this road before, and came out ok. We will do the same this time.

I respectfully disagree. Things are different now. LCC's are taking an increasingly larger share of the domestic market. Politically we are at risk with the potential demise of RLA thanks to Sen McCain. I don't think this recovery will be the same as previous ones. It just looks like a different landscape now. I was here for the last go-around and we simply didn't have the LCC presence that we have today.
I don't think Delta will meet its demise. Ultimately I don't think you can expect compensation to remain at the current levels. It's just a simple matter of economics.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

[VFR on Top]

Let me give you an example. I own a building. You want to rent an apartment from you. The lease specifies no pets, and you agree to that clause. If halfway through the lease, you were to get a pet, would I then be justified to terminate our relationship? Regardless of whether or not I was justified in banning pets, you knew that they were banned, and agreed to the terms. Would I be threatening you if I reminded you of your lease if I saw you in the pet store?

The point is, if you want to move out, you can have all the pets you want!

A weak analogy, dude. Here's a better one: I rent an apartment from you. I also rent an apartment from another complex where I keep my mistress. Your restrictions on pets or new paint or anything else have zero bearing on my contractual relationship with the other apartment complex, and any attempt by you to assert control over that relationship would never hold up in court.

Another example: your logic would seem to suggest that DL's toilet paper supplier, who supplies DL rolls of TP with 120 sheets per roll, cannot sell larger rolls to other airlines as it would put DL at an ass-sheet-mile cost disavantage to its competition.

Anyway, if the rumors are true, I guess we'll get to see what happens. I expect DALPA's assertion of purview over parts of SkyWest's business not related to DL codeshare will remain unaffected.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I never wrote that that steaming pile of manure you call a lawsuit would be dismissed. I wrote that you would lose. You will.

Is there any way to search for your post on that? I'm pretty darn sure you said ALPA would prevail on their motion for summary judgement. I would also like to find my initial post on C2K for a few more "I told you so's."

With regard to the outsome of the litigation, I doubt it will have an outcome. ALPA will try to delay the inevitable and then settle, just like they do in 90% of their cases.

After all, if your client was as terribly in the wrong as ALPA is on these issues, you would recommend settlement also.

It will never go to trial - ALPA would be insane to let this go forward in a fair and open Court of law.

 

[~~~^~~~]

It is not a threat, it is a condition of doing business with us, one your mgt knew all along. To imply otherwise makes it seem much more ominous than it really is.

Within any business relationship exists certain conditions which must be met. Those conditions are neither threats, nor illegal coercion. They are merely rules which must be followed. Not doing so could lead to the ending of that business relationship

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! ALPA, Delta and the Delta MEC all have an interest in limiting competition. So this cartel got together and came up with a contract which limits certain airlines from operating a competitive product.

The DOT has been inept and lazy about enforcing anti trust laws which exist to benefit the CONSUMER. I mean Delta management just came right out and said they were planning to ignore the DOT's conditions for the Continental and Northwest codeshare. Everyone has gotten used to the DOT failing to enforce competition under the guise of trying to allow the industry to regulate itself back into profitability. ~ BUT ~ Just because you drive 70 through a 25MPH School Zone and manage not to get caught does not mean you are not breaking the law. It means only that you are fortunate enough not to have caught the attention of any one willing to enforce the law.

Delta, the Delta MEC and ALPA have conspired to develop a horizontal restraint of trade when they stop independent airlines from operating a undesireable size of equipment under a non-Delta code. That conspiracy harms consumers and producers of aircraft, not to mention the pilots who fly for Skywest. Some body needs to take the offenders behind the woodshed and with treble damages on the table, somebody probably will eventually. If Skywest management challenged the illegal portions of the contract the conditions would not be enforceable.

This is similar to the claims that the RJDC would destroy scope by attacking the portions of the contract that are illegal.

It is true, a contract has to be for a legal purpose to be enforceable. This is why ALPA's current scope strategy is so flawed, the whole strategy is based on remote control. ALPA wants to control flying that it does not participate in - when challenged ALPA's position can't stand because it is a horizontal restraint on trade - an attempt at an illegal monopoly.

If ALPA is going to create enforceable scope, they have to return to their roots and the beginning of labor law in this Country - which is All Delta Flying performed by Delta Pilots. Trying to control the flying of other airlines and other pilots is simply going further than the law allows.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Well,
I think that you are smoking crack on both fronts, but to each his own.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear that the judge had ruled on the motion?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

A weak analogy, dude. Here's a better one: I rent an apartment from you. I also rent an apartment from another complex where I keep my mistress. Your restrictions on pets or new paint or anything else have zero bearing on my contractual relationship with the other apartment complex, and any attempt by you to assert control over that relationship would never hold up in court.

Actually, it would if my lease specified that you would have to move if you rented an apt for your mistriss. You signed the lease, you knew the rules. It's my building, you broke the lease, you have to move in with your mistress!


Another example: your logic would seem to suggest that DL's toilet paper supplier, who supplies DL rolls of TP with 120 sheets per roll, cannot sell larger rolls to other airlines as it would put DL at an ass-sheet-mile cost disavantage to its competition.

If the toilet paper supplier signed a contract with those conditions, then he would have to abide by them or lose my contract. I don't see why that concept is so difficult. Skywest can buy ANY airplane they want, and fly it wherever they want. However, Delta would have the right (and the contractual obligation) to cancell their agreement with Skywest.


Anyway, if the rumors are true, I guess we'll get to see what happens. I expect DALPA's assertion of purview over parts of SkyWest's business not related to DL codeshare will remain unaffected.

IF skywest bought large airplanes, and IF Delta did not cancell the c/s agreement, it would ONLY be because the Delta pilots granted Delta relief from that section of the contract.

Without a BK judge forcing it, Delta cannot just ignore our contract. If they did, we would grieve it, and we would win. There is NO grey area with which mgt could make an argument. There is no FM clause, etc. If you like, I could post the language.

 

[~~~^~~~]

IF skywest bought large airplanes, and IF Delta did not cancell the c/s agreement, it would ONLY be because the Delta pilots granted Delta relief from that section of the contract.

Without a BK judge forcing it, Delta cannot just ignore our contract. If they did, we would grieve it, and we would win. There is NO grey area with which mgt could make an argument. There is no FM clause, etc. If you like, I could post the language.

IF Skywest management expressed a documented desire to operate a >70 seat aircraft and Delta expressed an intent to cx codeshare = Then any party damaged by Delta's action could sue Delta and ALPA either seeking damages, or injunctive relief. Just as I could not enforce a contract to obtain my alleged crack habit, you can not enforce a contract to create a horizontal restraint on trade that harms consumers, or manufacturers, airlines, or their pilots.

I don't believe the Judge has ruled yet in the matter of Ford v. ALPA but ALPA withdrew much of their motion since they already had argued facts contrary to their current position. The problem for ALPA's attorneys is the same problem ALPA National has - the Delta MEC is not under their control. It is tough to litigate when you can not control your client.

One allegation is that ALPA has violated its duty of fair representation to Comair pilots by attempting to transfer jobs to a favored employee group - well - when you are on trial for attempted murder, it is not smart to publicly threaten to murder the defendent.

ALPA will have to slap a muzzle on Bill Buergey, Duane Woerth and folks like J.A. These guys are politicians, not employees. It takes a certain mind set to want to run for MEC office and unfortunately for ALPA, these guys make terrible defense witnesses because the same things they have to say to get support are the same exact statements that threatens the defendants.