A quick reminder about ACA

[FlyDeltasJets]

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.

Between Dulles and Reagan, we are the third largest carrier in DC, only slightly behind U. I would disagree that we have a "limited presence." Furthermore, we make no claims to any of your flying. You are free to fly whatever, wherever, and whenever you want. We do, however, have the right to place certain conditions on Delta mgt when they choose a codeshare partner. If you don't want to comply with the terms of the contract, you don't have to. But we don't have to allow Delta to codeshare with you either.


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.

While I have not seen the language of that contract, I would imagine that that "poison pill" would not be in effect if ACA first violated the terms of the contract.


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.....

I understand. However, unlike the furlough clause, there is nothing open to interpretation in this case. There is no loophole through which Delta's slimy lawyers can climb. Now, do I expect some deal to be made? Let's just say that stranger things have happened. If it does, I think we will all suffer, as the last thing this industry needs right now is another low cost carrier (which is synonymous with "low wage carrier").

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

Understood. I wish you the best. I hope it works out for all of us. However, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of regional airlines flying 737s. They have not the size, bargaining power, contract history on which to build, capital, resources, experience, etc. to achieve industry-leading or even average contracts. As a result, we will all have another negative force affecting our wages, and we will all suffer.

I hope someone proves me wrong. Unfortunately, all the evidence so far with low cost carriers is proving me right as rain.

 

[RJPilott]

FDJ,

Please help us get a job at Delta, AMR, UAL, or even CO so we dont have to go down that road.


Seriously though, some of us will do our best (our part) to keep AT LEAST industry standard.

 

[Patriot328]

Understood. I wish you the best. I hope it works out for all of us. However, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of regional airlines flying 737s. They have not the size, bargaining power, contract history on which to build, capital, resources, experience, etc. to achieve industry-leading or even average contracts. As a result, we will all have another negative force affecting our wages, and we will all suffer.

While I agree with the statement that adding another low cost carrier into the fray will not exactly raise the bar, will ACA still be considered a "regional" if they're flying 737s? It seems "regional" has mutated itself, once again, from the type of flying one does to the type of plane one flies, and now to the amount of money one makes at the end of the month.

Additionally, the discussion about whether we'd continue as a DAL carrier is moot, I believe. If we are violating the PWA at DAL (to which the answer has not been clear), I have a hard time seeing DAL management striking a deal with your pilot group just to let 33 broken down dorniers fly around the NE and midwest. They'd probably just eat the loses and sell the planes for sCrap.

 

[Russ]

Can some one who has a copy of the Delta contract please clear something up? I prefer someone who has the exact languge of the document answer. Does flying aircraft in excess of 70 seats automatically terminate DCI flying or does it simply bring the issue up for review and possible termination? If its the latter, there is wiggle room. FDJ, General, et al?

 

[liljetdriver]

RJ,

I don't know how to put this without offending ACA pilots, but who are you kidding? The majority of your pilot group voted for wage concessions at a time your company was making money hand over fist. Your sacrifice didn't change the United outcome one bit just as many said it wouldn't.

When management comes to you guys with 737s contingent on accepting the worst Boeing payscale in history what do you really think will happen? As a regional pilot I very rarely agree with FDJ's opinions (no offense, as they are always intelligent and thoughtfully presented). 737s have no business at a regional if said regional provides feed for other codeshares. If you guys keep all RJ and 737 flying within an ACA stand alone entity that is a horse of a different color. I wish you the best of luck in that endevour.

No matter how long this industry downturn lasts, I still hope to get on with a major someday. The regionals are too far behind to ever achieve the compensation and quality of life you enjoy at a major. If we keep adding bigger and bigger equipment at the regional level, we will soon see what many on this board hope for - regional/mainline parity. Except we will ALL be making regional wages. Effectively erasing all the strides that pilot unions have made since the mail carrier days.

Fly Safe

 

[Splert]

Try this link.

http://airlinepilotcontracts.com/Contracts/Delta_Contract_2000.pdf

 

[General Lee]

Russ,

I will look it up and see if I can get you the answer. HeavySet is right though, we don't really want to compete against one of our codeshare partners. This could also happen if Skywest were to get 100 seaters and try to fly them on the West Coast. We like partners, not competitors. It will be interesting.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Rotorhead]

One thing to remember about the scope in the DALPA PWA, it is a contract between DALPA and Delta. There is another contract involved, the contract between ACA and Delta.

ACA may be in full compliance with its contract with Delta and the details of such contract may have slipped beneath the radar of DALPAs PWA.

Looking at the date of the PWA, June 21, 2001 the ACA contract(circa spring 2000) predates this document and would likley have some sort of legal precedent. It is a 10 year agreement that Delta entered in to before the current PWA.

Unless there is a clause holding ACA to the details of the DALPA PWA in its contract with Delta, there may be wiggle room here. I do not have access to the language, as I doubt any on this board do.

Since this plan to go alone has been shared with Delta I think this might have been addressed and Delta does not consider it an issue.

If not, and ACA has to eat the leases on 30 of the 328's, it will go down as one of the greatest airline management blunders of all time.

 

[inthepool]

how many people here honestly believe ACA's management hasn't already considered the Delta flying? It's obvious that ACA has thoughtfully researched and carefully planned their moves, so what leads anyone to believe that they "forgot" or "overlooked" the DCI flying? Skeen himself says the DCI flying will go on business as usual, which to me says there is either a loophole, or ACA's contract with DL predates the scope and was grandfathered in. Remember, while a lot of us on this board think we know everything, the reality of the matter is we NEVER have all the information...

 

[NYRANGERS]

how many people here honestly believe ACA's management hasn't already considered the Delta flying? It's obvious that ACA has thoughtfully researched and carefully planned their moves, so what leads anyone to believe that they "forgot" or "overlooked" the DCI flying? Skeen himself says the DCI flying will go on business as usual, which to me says there is either a loophole, or ACA's contract with DL predates the scope and was grandfathered in. Remember, while a lot of us on this board think we know everything, the reality of the matter is we NEVER have all the information...

They may have considered it, but our contract is pretty clear on this subject (about the only place it is clear). They can try to operate business as usual, they have nothing to loose, our contract only provides for a grievance. However it is very clear that this would violate our PWA and once an arbitrator ruled this relationship would be over.

That said......what makes you think Delta would want to provide a fee for departure to an airline that intends to directly compete with them? You may be surprised at Delta's response in the next few days.

I wish you ACA guys the best of luck, this could be an exciting new direction for you.