A quick reminder about ACA

[FlyDeltasJets]

I make no predictions on the actions of our MEC in this case, but as it stands right now, if ACA were to take posession of even a single airplane above 70 seats (regardless of what code it flies under) they would lose thier contract with Delta.

Perhaps a separate operating certificate (a la freedom) is in the works? I don't have my contract handy, so I don't know if that would be enough to get around that clause of our contract, so it remains to be seen.

If they do get 737's, I hope they set a new standard in pilot pay for them. Something tells me they will, but not in the way I'm hoping.

I do, however, wish the pilots luck.

 

[InclusiveScope]

FDJs,
They still have the ACJet Certificate available for the DCI flying. Putting that aside, why do you care what they do outside of the Delta code?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FDJs,
They still have the ACJet Certificate available for the DCI flying. Putting that aside, why do you care what they do outside of the Delta code?

The mere fact that you are not in competition with mesa for Delta flying as you write that should be enough to make the answer to your question pretty evident.

No thanks is needed, but perhaps you should think twice before attempting to destroy the very protection that our scope clause provides for you.

 

[Rotorhead]

We do own two distinct operating certificates. Remember your PWA and this 70 seat clause, is between Delta and DALPA. There doesn't seem to be much harmony there right now. I highly doubt the pilots could cajole management into enforcing this rather obscure provision. They can't even keep them from furloughing under "force manure". Somehow I think this is a non issue. As for the rates, i guess we will see what the market will dictate. Alas they won't be new standards to the high side, but they will be high for us.

 

[NYRANGERS]

Remember your PWA and this 70 seat clause, is between Delta and DALPA. There doesn't seem to be much harmony there right now. I highly doubt the pilots could cajole management into enforcing this rather obscure provision. They can't even keep them from furloughing under "force manure". Somehow I think this is a non issue.

That part of our PWA is not subject to force majeure. I am glad this has raised questions at Delta so quickly. This is why you learn your contract when you get it.

To keep with the ACA theme here........I think it is great if ACA can make a go of it on their own. It may mean bigger planes with a bigger paycheck. I hope all the ACA guys keep their job and I hope this benefits their pilot group. This will also free up a lot of 50 seat rj's that Delta is so in love with. They can transfer the 50's to their DCI operation. Looks like CVG may be getting bigger.

Anyway good luck to all,

NYR

PS. I may need to take my own advice about "re-learning" the contract, but hey I've been "f'ed" for almost two years. It seems that even having separate certificates is not allowed (as far as over 70 seaters is concerned)

I am sure ACA knew this and is ok with severing ties with Delta.

 

[Rotorhead]

My point is that the PWA is between Delta and DALPA. The scope issue refering to 70 seat jets is between Delta and DALPA.

There is NO harmony between these entities and I have my doubts that DALPA could get Delta to enforce this provision about connection carriers operating 70+ seat jets INDEPENDENT of the DCI code.

It might be in DALPAs interest to park the 328s but it isn't in Deltas interest to park 30 jets, it won't happen.

 

[Heavy Set]

Delta would not subsidize competitor

First, let me say that I am impressed with ACA's BALL$... Good job not letting UAL push you around.

Next, let me say that I doubt Delta will be happy competing against ANOTHER low-cost carrier on the East Coast. I highly doubt that the other Delta contract with the Dorkjets would be maintained. Think about it - why would Delta want to subsidize a low-cost competitor? Delta could always replace the ACA feed in CVG with Chataqua EMJs or more Comair jets. I think Delta has no interest in paying a competitor for feed - does not make sense...

If this is merely an attempt to FORCE UAL to the bargaining table, this might be an effective move. However, the relationship would like be very sour as a result... No more nods in the crew lounge...

On the plus side, if ACA decides to go for broke and sever relations with both UAL and Delta (if Delta objects to new competition...), then maybe ACA has a chance if it can quickly muster up some used 737-300/400s and train pilots. I know there are plenty of used FK100s available as well.

Good luck to all ACA pilots!

 

[tittyjet]

For all of the jail-house lawyers out there, questions about this specific issue were posed in the Conference Call by Mike Somebody-or-Other from Merrill-Lynch.

The question was answered straightforwardly, with a response that it will be "Business as usual with Delta," and that there will be no conflict of interest even after the implementation of the model mainly b/c ACA will be feeding itself at IAD, where DAL has very little presence.

I believe that in the due-diligence associated with putting together this type of business model, this issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of the ACA mgmt team, as well as their counsel.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Rotor,

Delta has no choice in this matter. The language is clear, unambiguous, and not subject to any force majeur clauses. The only way that they could continue to codeshare with ACA if they get 737's is with our permission or through some loophole like a separate operating certificate (perhaps).

Will we give that permission? I don't know. But if we don't, Delta will have no choice but to comply with our contract. It is probably in Delta's best interest to pay us all $2.00 per hour, too, but we have a contract. Unless we agree to change it, Delta is legally obligated to comply with it. The same goes with the 70 seat limit. If Delta were to challenge it, they would lose in every court in the land.

Harmony doesn't even enter into the picture.

 

[Rotorhead]

FDJ,
I think this might wind up being an example of scope, which I support well written scope, run amok. Whether or not we fly larger jets FOR OURSELVES through a loophole or not, how should DALPA be able to affect that flying. It isn't your flying and it isn't your right to affect it. It is doubtful that there will be any direct competition anyway as Delta has a limited presence in DC.

On the issue of subsidizing our independent operation Delta cannot just cancel our contract outside of Ch 11 without assuming the leases on all 30 328Jets. A bit of a poison pill if you will.

My force majeur comment was in no way intended to be associated with this subject, just an example of how DALPA and Delta differ on "clear, unambiguous" contract language. r.e. the furloughed pilots.....

Remember before anybodies blood pressure gets to rising, none of this is personal, it is just business.