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).
