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.