a MAJOR announcement @ SkyWest

[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.