ACA, Delta, Skyway 328JET press releases

[vc10]

PRESS RELEASE: Atlantic Coast Airlines to Exit Delta Connection Program

Dow Jones News Service via Dow Jones

DULLES, Va., April 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Atlantic Coast Airlines
Holdings, Inc. (ACA) (Nasdaq: ACAI) today announced it has received formal
notification from Delta Air Lines that it will end its fee-per-departure
agreement with ACA by invoking its right under the Delta Connection Agreement to
terminate without cause upon 180 days notice. ACA has served in partnership
with Delta since August 2000, and currently operates a fleet of 30 Fairchild
Dornier 328JET aircraft from Delta's hubs in Cincinnati and Boston.

In order to prepare for the transition of ACA out of the Delta program, Delta
also announced that effective July 2004, it will consolidate the entire
ACA/Delta Connection operation in Cincinnati by moving the 10 328JET aircraft
currently flown by ACA at Delta's Boston hub to Cincinnati, as well as
discontinuing ACA flights from New York.

ACA/Independence Air Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kerry Skeen said,
"We had anticipated Delta's decision for some time and understand their reasons
for ending our code share relationship. Under the terms of our agreement, we
now have the right to require Delta to assume the leases on some or all of the
30 328JETs used in the Delta program. We plan to use at least some of the time
we have during the notice period to review and evaluate our options for the
328JETs before finalizing any decisions. If we ultimately elect to require
Delta to assume some or all of the leases, we would anticipate developing a
transition plan similar to the one we just completed with United."

He added, "Our decision to become an independent low-fare airline means that
our focus going forward will not be on fee-per-departure relationships that rely
on other companies' brands and business models. We believe that this decision
by Delta will significantly simplify our overall operation and allow us to focus
100% of our management and employee attention on our new Independence Air
service. The benefit to our customers is that the entire company can now be
based solely on providing excellent low-fare service under our own Independence
Air brand from Washington and Northern Virginia to destinations across America."


Low-fare airline Independence Air will serve Washington Dulles International
Airport with a schedule of over 300 daily departures this summer -- making it
the largest low-fare hub in America. Inaugural service on Independence Air is
scheduled for June 16, 2004.

Under the terms of ACA's Delta Connection Agreement, if Delta terminates
without cause, ACA has the right during the 180-day notification period to
require Delta to assume the leases on some or all of the 30 328JET aircraft used
in the company's Delta Connection operation. While the obligations on these
aircraft leases would be assigned to Delta, ACA may not be able to extinguish
its obligations under the leases unless Delta or its assignee meet certain
financial conditions at the time Delta becomes obligated to assume the leases.
Delta currently does not meet those financial conditions.


The company has a fleet of 142 aircraft -- including a total of 120 regional
jets -- and offers 800 daily departures, serving over 80 destinations. The
company employs approximately 4,100 aviation professionals.

For more information about Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc., please
visit our website at www.atlanticcoast.com. For more information about
Independence Air, please visit our "preview" site at www.FLYi.com.


Statements in this press release and by company executives regarding its
implementation of new business strategies, as well as regarding operations,
earnings, revenues and costs, represent forward-looking information. A number
of risks and uncertainties exist which could cause actual results to differ
materially from these projected results. Such risks and uncertainties include,
among others: the ability to redeploy or assign to Delta or others the leases of
the 328JET aircraft currently used in the company's Delta Connection operations,
the possibility that the company will remain obligated under the leases for
aircraft currently used in the Delta Connection operations, unexpected costs or
procedural complications arising from the insolvency of Fairchild Dornier GmbH,
the manufacturer and equity owner of the 328JETs, the need for approval in
United's bankruptcy case of United's rejection of the United Express Agreement
with ACA and approval of the ACA/United transition agreement out of the United
Express program, the ability of ACA to implement its transition out of the
United Express and Delta Connection programs, the ability to effectively
implement its low-fare business strategy utilizing regional jets and Airbus
aircraft; the ability to complete the acquisition of, and secure financing for,
its Airbus aircraft, and to successfully integrate these aircraft into its
fleet; and general economic and industry conditions, any of which may impact the
company, its aircraft manufacturers and its other suppliers in ways that the
company is not currently able to predict. Certain of these and other risk
factors are more fully disclosed under "Risk Factors" and "Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in the
company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Statements in this press release are made as of April 6, 2004 and Atlantic Coast
Airlines Holdings, Inc. undertakes no obligation to update any such
forward-looking information, including as a result of any new information,
future events, changed expectations or otherwise.

SOURCE Atlantic Coast Airlines
/CONTACT: Rick DeLisi, Director, Corporate Communications, of Atlantic
Coast Airlines, +1-703-650-6019/
/Web site: http://www.atlanticcoast.com
http://www.FLYi.com/

 

[vc10]

Delta Connection Terminates Atlantic Coast Airlines Agreement

Delta Connection Carrier Comair Replaces Operations in the Northeast

ATLANTA, April 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Delta Connection will terminate
its agreement with Atlantic Coast Airlines (ACA), effective October 2004.
"The business models of the two companies are diverging, and the
termination of the connection carrier agreement will allow each to take the
path best suited for their company's future," said Fred Buttrell, president
and chief executive officer, Delta Connection, Inc. "In addition, the
termination will also ensure that we do not conflict with the Delta Air Lines
pilot working agreement."
To prepare for the termination, aircraft flown by ACA will move from
Boston and New York -- JFK to Cincinnati, which will consolidate ACA
operations in Cincinnati by July 2004. Additionally, Delta Connection carrier
Comair will move aircraft to the Northeast markets to replace the routes
currently operated by ACA.
"Reallocating aircraft between the Northeast and Cincinnati helps us to
prepare for the upcoming transition," said Buttrell. "The aircraft
reallocation will also increase the size of Delta Connection regional jet
aircraft operating in Boston markets from 32 to 50 seats."
ACA has participated in the Delta Connection program since 1999, and began
flying as a partner in August 2000. Delta Connection and ACA are currently
working out the details and specific timetable, but we anticipate a smooth
operational transition.
The 30 FRJ 328 aircraft currently flown by ACA are expected to remain in
the Delta Connection carrier program, but will be operated by another carrier.
Delta Connection is working to finalize the specifics of the program
transition.
Delta Connection carriers include Delta's (NYSE: DAL) wholly owned
subsidiaries Atlantic Southeast Airlines and Comair, along with Chautauqua
Airlines and SkyWest Airlines, and codeshare partner in California American
Eagle. Delta Connection is an industry leader in the regional jet market
operating more than 400 regional jets throughout North America. For more
information, please visit delta.com .

SOURCE Delta Connection
-0- 04/06/2004
/CONTACT: Delta Corporate Communications, +1-404-715-2554/
/Web site: http://www.delta.com /

 

[vc10]

Skyway Airlines in Discussions to Operate Delta Connection's 328JET Fleet

MILWAUKEE, April 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Milwaukee-based Skyway
Airlines, Inc. today confirmed that it is in discussions with Delta Air Lines,
Inc. to operate the Fairchild 328JET fleet of Delta Connection, Inc. Atlantic
Coast Airlines currently provides that service, but will phase out its 328JET
operations later this year.
"With our experience operating the 328JET, we're in a unique position to
grow our operations by assuming responsibility for operating Delta
Connection's 328 fleet," said Jim Rankin, president and chief executive
officer of Skyway Airlines. "We are hopeful we can come to mutually
satisfactory terms." He added that Skyway would not provide further comment
regarding these discussions until the parties reach an agreement or terminate
their discussions.
"Skyway has been evaluating opportunities to operate aircraft for other
airlines, which would constitute a shift in Skyway's business model," Rankin
said. "These discussions represent the first step toward such a shift." Skyway
has primarily provided connections for its parent, Midwest Airlines, Inc.
while operating as Midwest Connect; that service would remain independent of
any operating relationship with Delta Connection.

Skyway Airlines currently offers connections to Midwest Airlines flights,
as well as point-to-point service between select markets on regional jet and
turboprop aircraft. Together, Midwest and Skyway offer service to 50 cities.
More information is available at www.midwestairlines.com .

This document contains forward-looking statements that may state the
company's or management's intentions, hopes, beliefs, expectations or
predictions for the future. Words such as "expect," "anticipate," "believe,"
"estimate," "goal," "objective" or similar words are intended to identify
forward-looking statements. It is important to note that the company's actual
results could differ materially from those projected results due to factors
that include but are not limited to successful negotiation of arrangements,
uncertainties related to general economic factors, industry conditions,
scheduling developments, government regulations, labor relations, aircraft
maintenance and refurbishment schedules, potential delays related to acquired
aircraft, fuel costs, competitive developments, interest rates, terrorist
attacks or fear of terrorist attack.

SOURCE Skyway Airlines, Inc.
-0- 04/06/2004
/CONTACT: Media Inquiries, Carol Skornicka, +1-414-570-3980, or
+1-888-360-4782, or [email protected] , or Analyst-Investor
Inquiries, Dennis O'Reilly, +1-414-570-3954, or
Dennis.O'[email protected] , both for Skyway Airlines, Inc./
/Web site: http://www.midwestairlines.com /

 

[bailout]

Well now, thats alot for one day..!

 

[General Lee]

I love that "legal speak" in the last 3 or 4 paragraphs in the Skyway article. Thanks Johnnie Cochran!!

Bye Bye--General Lee

PS--We need TORT reform!

 

[surplus1]

Dumb Question

If ACA has to leave Delta Connection because of Independence and its big airplanes, how come it's OK to change to Skyway with Midwest's big airplanes?

I don't see the difference?

 

[P38JLightning]

Good question

Surplus,

I was thinking the same thing. We all know (well, okay, MOST of us know) that the "seperate certificate trick" won't work; the Delta pilots already have that covered in their scope clause.

So with Skyway being a wholly owned of Midwest, what's the difference? Of course maybe the Delta pilots will grant a scope waiver to allow it. You know, management whines about how if they don't do it they'll "lose lift" and granting them an exception will help fund some pension debt load, etc. Of course Duane would never allow that, because he is committed to brand scope, so he would withold his signature if necessary. (right?)

AirTran and Northwest are both going after MidEx hard. How ironic would it be if this greatly enlarged wholly owned sub of theirs, flying off a fee for departure at a guaranteed profit margin allowed MidEx to "skim" some of those profits to survive, thrive, and peck away at Delta's marketshare someday, not to mention grow and be in a position to depress Delta's yields even more in other markets.

Too bad the ivy league brandy sniffers aren't able to actualy run an airline, and instead need to outsource everything.

Oh well, let the low balling continue.

 

[vc10]

The difference is that Skyway and Midwest Airlines have two separate FAA certificates---and therefore are two separate airlines.

ACA could have established another certificate (in fact it had a spare for a while) but running two separate certificates is expensive (duplicate officers, duplicate systems, etc) and in the end they decided it wasn't worth it.

Note that even if they had two separate certificates, Delta could have still pulled the contract---because they can do so for "no cause". In fact, legally, that's what Delta did anyway, because although ACA flying Airbuses is illegal with respect to Delta's scope, it's not illegal relative to the Delta-ACA agreement (i.e. whoever originally negotiated the ACA agreement at Delta was a bonehead for not making sure that it required ACA to stay in compliance with Delta scope).

FLYI will be a significant competitor of Delta, so there's a good chance that Delta would have pulled the agreement even had ACA set up a separate certificate for the DoJets. However, not setting up a separate certificate made it all but certain that Delta would pull the contract.

 

[P38JLightning]

seperate certificate myth

vc10,

You may be right about Delta viewing Independance Air as much more of a potential threat than Midwest Express. Maybe Jerry doesn't have a problem with subsidizing them, or maybe he's actualy dumb enough to believe they will "keep it seperate" and they will in no way skim off the top to fund their operation. Jerry's only mission in life right now is union busting, so that theory may hold water.

But the "seperate certificate trick" does not. This is why Mesa isn't a DCI carrier. JO would sell his soul to get some DCI but he can't because they operate 90 seaters on ONE of their many "air group" certificates. To the Delta pilot's credit, their scope forbids codesharing with any Delta Connection carrier (or any carrier for that matter) with anything over 70 seats on ANY operating certificate anywhere in its HOLDING COMPANY (not just certificate) without prior permission from the Delta pilots.

For the record, ACA establishing the "ACJet" certificate to "get around" scope was only true regarding United and the terms of their pilots scope clause at the time. United later dropped that requirement, but Delta pilot scope is worded to prohibit holding companies, not "certificates."

There's tons of certificates laying around (both active and dormant) and its not that big of a deal to dust one off. Sure there's expense involved, but that's a small price to pay for 30 jets worth of the guaranteed profit margin fee for departure gravy train.

So with MidEx owning Skyway, it appears the Delta pilots will have to provide an exemption. They can't however, cause Duane will withold his signature because he believes in "brand scope" (right?)

 

[tbkane]

P38,

I am not sure where your getting your information regarding Delta scope, but your analogy about Midwest Airlines and Skyway requiring an exemption is incorrect. Otherwise Eagle could not do Delta connection feed as they are owned owned by AMR Holdings as well as American Airlines.

So to say that Skyway and Midwest are both held by Midwest Holdings and the 328's can't go to Skyway due to this, that arguement does not hold water.

I am not positive on the wording of our contract, but it seems that Skyway can and hopefully will get the Do Jets.

 

[vc10]

Delta will not have to obtain an exemption for Skyway to fly the DorkJets. DCI doesn't do business with Mesa and that has nothing to do with the 90 seat limit.

DCI did not ask Mesa to bid on the recent 45 RJ package. When asked why, they refused to say. So make your own guesses, but it's nothing to do with the 90-seat issue.

 

[P38JLightning]

fine print

tbkane,

As far as I know, the Eagle codeshare is a bit different in that its not actually Delta Connection. AMR controls the scheduling, frequency, gauge, routes, everything. All Delta does is buy a FEW seats on routes AMR is doing anyway. These planes are not flown as Delta Connection.

But in any case, I believe (99.9% sure of it) the Delta pilots had to allow this exemption, and of course they did. Maybe someone who knows more about the details can chime in. And also post a copy of the scope clause section of the Delta PWA that coveres DCI and all other outsourcing.

Nothing against Skyway, as I hope they do well as a Midwest Connection, but we have enough outsourcing here at DCI. You are on furlough for years while hundreds upon hundreds of DCI pilots are hired "off the street" to fly Delta pax in Delta painted planes and that is disgusting. You should have had the opportunity to fly one of the hundreds of allowable outsourced jets in DCI years ago and would be a CRJ, EMB or DoJet Captain by now making at least 50 or 60K a year (if you wanted it) but the way its structured now you never had that option, and that's wrong.

We have a long way to go to fix this profession, and it starts by rolling back outsourcing, not continuing to look the other way while the cancer grows.

 

[General Lee]

P38,

I am glad you treat TBKANE with respect, he has really gone through the ringer here through no fault of his own, and I too am glad that he is getting back in the cockpit. It would have been nice had all of the wholly owned DCI carriers gotten together and offered a furlough "bridge" program (bottom of the list) after the announcement of recalls, and I bet Dalpa would have been more open to give extra relief to DCI in the process. But I don't know if Delta would have wanted that---since they seem to enjoy the whipsaw process also.

Right now I am lookinf forward to seeing the "Grand Master Plan" in July from Grinstein--I think that will shed some light on where we will be "going" in the future. Until then, it is good to see guys like TBKANE getting back into flying, and flying a Delta product at the same time. Hopefully he will be back flying for DELTA sooner than later.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Thanks for the response. Both you and P38JLightning have made interesting replies. I'll try to comment on both of them in this post.

The difference is that Skyway and Midwest Airlines have two separate FAA certificates---and therefore are two separate airlines.

ACA could have established another certificate (in fact it had a spare for a while) but running two separate certificates is expensive (duplicate officers, duplicate systems, etc) and in the end they decided it wasn't worth it.

OK, I expected that someone would say that and the statement is accurate. What is really interesting is that this points directly to the irrelevance of the touted "Scope Clause" in the Delta PWA. If in fact all that has to be done to avoid the scope clause is the initiation of multiple certificates it follows that the scope clause is impotent and useless. There are additional issues but I'm trying to take them one at a time.

Note that even if they had two separate certificates, Delta could have still pulled the contract---because they can do so for "no cause". In fact, legally, that's what Delta did anyway, because although ACA flying Airbuses is illegal with respect to Delta's scope, it's not illegal relative to the Delta-ACA agreement (i.e. whoever originally negotiated the ACA agreement at Delta was a bonehead for not making sure that it required ACA to stay in compliance with Delta scope).

Now you're getting to the crux of the issues. I agree that the ACA/Delta agreement permits Delta to terminate the contract "without cause". That is Delta's "out" and they wisely used it. Although Delta Connection executive Butrell made reference to the Delta PWA in his statement, that was merely a placebo for the Delta pilots whose "scope clause" (with respect to this matter) is not legally enforceable.

You make a critical point when you say "although ACA flying Airbuses is illegal with respect to Delta's scope, it's not illegal relative to the Delta-ACA agreement", critical but not fully accurate (legally). It is not really "illegal" for ACA to fly Airbuses because of the Delta PWA. That might violate Delta's agreement with ALPA but, as you point out, it does not (apparently) violate ACA's agreement with Delta. A contract between ALPA and Delta does not bind ACA, unless ACA has agreed to be bound. I doubt seriously that they have.

There are provisions in the Delta PWA that appear to require Delta to secure agreement of ACA (and other DCI carriers) to that section of the Scope clause. However, unless that was actually done it is moot. Delta might try to get such and agreement, but ACA executives would be fools to have made it and I doubt that they did.

I know for a fact that Comair never made any such agreement before it was acquired by Delta. That didn't keep the Delta pilots from believing that their Scope was enforceable, but in fact it was not. Now that CMR is a Delta subsidiary it of course is enforceable but it was not previously. There was never a dispute because Comair wasn't doing anything at the time that required it and there was no need to mount a challenge.

When you refer to the absence of a provision in the ACA/Delta agreement that supports the Delta PWA you call the negotiators boneheads. I'm not sure which negotiators you are referring to (the company's or the union's), but from my perspective, the company knew exactly what it was doing. If I am correct, that makes the ALPA negotiators the "boneheads", not the Company. This isn't the first time that scope has been rendered impotent by this particular legal maneuver.

There are two separate contracts, one between Delta and ACA and another between Delta and ALPA. The first makes no reference (according to what you say) to the provisions of the second. Therefore, those provisions (the scope clause) are not binding upon ACA. Any attempt by Delta to enforce the Delta PWA upon ACA, against its will, would not stand if litigated. The escape clause in the ACA/DAL contract makes that dispute unnecessary, which in turn explains why Delta would use it. It gets the job done, avoids a lawsuit between DAL/ACA and gives Delta the chance to tell the Delta pilots that it is "enforcing their scope clause". Smoke and mirrors that keeps the Delta pilots happy. However, if the Company (Delta) did not want to terminate the agreement with ACA, I'm quite sure that the Delta PWA would be revealed as the sieve that it is.

I don't think that the Delta pilots or ALPA want to acknowledge this, but that does not change the legal realities. ALPA has been pretending to write airtight scope clauses for years, all designed to prevent the increase in regional jets. None has worked yet and each company that wanted to has found a way to avoid them without the need to challenge them in court. Do you really think that's an accident? I don't; that's how the companies planned it. If and when they decide to challenge those restrictive scope clauses in court they will do so, and they will win. There just hasn't been a need.

When it comes to Skyway, as we all know it is a subsidiary of Air Midwest. They may have two operating certificates and that may serve to avoid the battle of the Scope Clause. ALPA will simply say "it doesn't apply". They aren't going to take it to court in an attempt to enforce it.

Reality is that Midwest Airlines operation of "large" aircraft is really not different from Independence's operation of large aircraft in the sense of the intent of the Delta PWA. It is truly six of one, half-dozen of the other. Call it whatever suits your fancy, if it walks like a Duck …. you know the rest. Midwest Airlines may not be much of a competitor to Delta today, but it certainly is a competitor of NWA, which in turn is allied with DAL in a codeshare agreement.

The bottom line is that scope clauses that are attempts to restrain trade are an abomination and are not legally enforceable. Smart corporate lawyers have found ways around them, but one day there will probably be a legal confrontation. If that happens, I predict that this type of scope restriction will be thrown out in a heartbeat. I think the corporate lawyers know that. I think the ALPA lawyers know it too, they just choose to make pilots "feel good" by writing unenforceable contracts that they hope will not be challenged. It's a game.

Originally posted by P38JLightning Surplus,

I was thinking the same thing. We all know (well, okay, MOST of us know) that the "seperate certificate trick" won't work; the Delta pilots already have that covered in their scope clause.

If you read the above I'm sure you'll note that we don't agree. The Delta pilots may think that they have it covered but in fact they do not. The only reason they have no problem is because the Company has it covered with their own escape clause, which allows them to cancel the ACA agreement without cause. If that wasn't there, that portion of the Delta PWA wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on."

So with Skyway being a wholly owned of Midwest, what's the difference? Of course maybe the Delta pilots will grant a scope waiver to allow it. You know, management whines about how if they don't do it they'll "lose lift" and granting them an exception will help fund some pension debt load, etc. Of course Duane would never allow that, because he is committed to brand scope, so he would withhold his signature if necessary. (right?)

I'm reasonably sure you're being facetious with that commentary. As to what Duane will or will not sign the answer is a foregone conclusion. He will sign whatever any mainline group wants him to sign. If anyone knows who butters his bread and on which side, it is that gentleman.

AirTran and Northwest are both going after MidEx hard. How ironic would it be if this greatly enlarged wholly owned sub of theirs, flying off a fee for departure at a guaranteed profit margin allowed MidEx to "skim" some of those profits to survive, thrive, and peck away at Delta's marketshare someday, not to mention grow and be in a position to depress Delta's yields even more in other markets.

Anyone that chooses to believe that this will not help Midwest to be more competitive against the legacy carriers just doesn't want to be realistic. They are in financial trouble and whatever benefits their subsidiary (Skyway) will benefit them. Of course I would not expect Delta pilots to see it that way. They believe that Comair and ASA don't benefit Delta so it will be hard for them to see Skyway flying for Delta as beneficial to Midwest and therefore detrimental to them. If you cover your eyes with your hand you can pretend that there is no sky. The DAL pilots seem to be good at doing that.

Too bad the ivy league brandy sniffers aren't able to actualy run an airline, and instead need to outsource everything.

Outsourcing is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Those who considered themselves to be above operating all these "little airplanes" made the mistake that permits outsourcing a long time ago. We as pilots did this to ourselves. If management had not taken advantage of it they would be fools. I would not blame them for establishing it however; the mainline pilots did it to themselves and have done everything in their power to keep it so. When you make your bed you can expect to lie in it.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,

Thanks for your long explanation. You have many good points, but you stated that Dalpa has restricted you on the number of RJs. Well, that may be true in the case of the 70 seaters, but overall DCI has more RJs than anyone else, and since 9-11 Dalpa even gave you more relief and more chance to expand. Our Scope clause HAS NOT been very restrictive in reality. And, more and more companies (like Airtran) are realizing that RJs are not the way to go in the future--since they limit feed into hubs, cannot viably compete with LCCs with mianline sized planes and lower fares, and clog up the ATC system (ORD)--requiring limits on traffic. With lower fares comes the need for MORE seats--to spread out the costs. As LCCs expand eventually, there will be more of a need to compete on their fare structure. Yes, labor costs will also have to be addressed (I wish they would negotiate), but 50 seat RJs will be limited in the future---just like 19 seat props are now being phased out. I can understand how DCI might feel about this, and they are worried---and probably support the RJDC and their believed right to eventually compete for 100 seaters. Hopefully that can all be resolved after our last furlough--TBKANE--returns to his job flying for Delta.

As far as the Midwest and ACA deal----I think you may be correct about Delta thinking ACA is more of a threat--and to not feed money to a potential threat.

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

What is really interesting is that this points directly to the irrelevance of the touted "Scope Clause" in the Delta PWA. If in fact all that has to be done to avoid the scope clause is the initiation of multiple certificates it follows that the scope clause is impotent and useless.

Surplus, your premise is wrong from the start, since for the purposes of the Delta PWA a "domestic air carrier" is defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(2), not by the FAA and not by which certificate it flies under. Since much of your argument is based on this false premise your point that scope is impotent and useless because it can be avoided by initiating multiple certificates is incorrect.

You are right that the DAL PWA is not binding on ACA, but it is binding on DAL, therefore DAL must conduct its dealings in accordance with the DAL PWA and it is binding and lawful.

 

[jobear]

I must say Surplus your points seem valid up to where you said that NWA was in competition with Midwest Airlines. IF the red tails wanted MKE and MEA to go the way of the Dodo's all they would have to do is flood it with cheap seats and they would run Uncle timmy's airline into the ground in a week.

The fact that Skyway is most likely going to take over the ACA flying should actually help CMR/ASA get more A/C. Delta wants as many of those 328 hulls out of the system as possible,WHY? If someone else owns some of them the DCI can grow CMR/ASA.

Rumor mill has it SYX will buy(?) 10 hulls for our own fleet. Since ACA is dropping the BOS base SYX will not need 30 328's to fly the ACA routes out of CVG. How many cities are served by ACA from CVG?

Jobear

 

[j41driver]

Rumor mill has it SYX will buy(?) 10 hulls for our own fleet. Since ACA is dropping the BOS base SYX will not need 30 328's to fly the ACA routes out of CVG. How many cities are served by ACA from CVG?

Not sure how many cities but there are approx. 20 328's in CVG and 10 in BOS so it stands to reason that Skyway would only need approx 20 airplanes to do our CVG routes.

 

[surplus1]

FDJ2,

Take a second look at what I said, please. I did NOT say that another certificate allows circumvention of your Scope clause. That is not my premise at all. I said that IF this were so, it would render your scope impotent, which it would. The premise was that of the person to whom I responded.

If his premise is not accurate, then it follows there is no difference between the Dornier being operated by ACA (because they will have Airbus aircraft) or Skyway because Midwest has Douglas aircraft. The only "difference" between the two is the referenced certificate.

You are correct about the language of the Delta PWA. My point is really quite simple. The language itself is useless because it is not legally enforceable unless the offender, in this case ACA or SKY, chooses to endorse the provisions of your PWA via language in their contract with Delta. Most airlines, even regional airlines, have not yet been desperate enough to do that.

Why on earth would any viable business give the Delta pilots the right to dictate whom it will do business with or what its business plan should be?

You are attempting to do the same thing that USAirways pilots tried to do. The result was Freedom and later Republic, both of which did circumvent the Scope clause. That is because both Mesa Air Group management and Chautauqua management didn't have the guts to tell USAG where to go and found the way around it by creating alter egos. In turn, the union that created the mess wound up by forcing the Mesa pilots into an abomination of a contract, plus both Mesa and CHQ pilots abidicated their seniority via Jets for Jobs in an effort to regain control of the alter egos.

Management knows what it is doing with this issue, and the labor union (ALPA) is engaged in illegal practices against its own members.

In the ACA scenario the Company (Delta) is not enforcing your Scope. It is acting on the basis of its own contract with ACA and the relevant escape clause (termination without cause).

This kind of garbage scope is exactly why your company wound up having to buy Comair and it is why ACA told UAL to go to he!!. UAL couldn't buy ACA because they are bankrupt. At the time Delta had lots of money and it could and did buy Comair. Otherwise, Comair management would have done exactly what ACA management did vis a vis UAL, i.e., told you to pound sand.

There was no six month escape clause in Comair's contract with Delta. The ten year contract was expiring and CMR would not accept Delta's terms for a renewal, nor would Delta accept Comair's. That left two options, buy us or watch us continue on our own way and lose your lift. It is obvious which course Delta decided to take.

If you do not believe that Delta cutting a deal with Skyway bypasses your scope then please tell me why. Why does that transaction comply with your scope clause if the ACA transaction does not? What makes it "different"?

I would also like you to tell me why the CHQ deal with UAL, which will result in the operation of aircraft with more than 70-seats by CHQ, does not violate your scope. Tell me also what you intend to do about it. Are you going to tell Delta that it has to cancel its contract with Chautauqa? Would you like to take bets on how soon they'll do that? There are multiple certificates at Chautauqua too (their own plus Republic), but both of those carriers will soon be operating aircraft with more than 70-seats. What are the Delta pilots going to do about it?

To the Skyway folks --- Please do not think that I am against your making a deal with Delta. I am not opposed, hope you get the contract and wish you well.

Surplus, your premise is wrong from the start, since for the purposes of the Delta PWA a "domestic air carrier" is defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(2), not by the FAA and not by which certificate it flies under. Since much of your argument is based on this false premise your point that scope is impotent and useless because it can be avoided by initiating multiple certificates is incorrect.

You are right that the DAL PWA is not binding on ACA, but it is binding on DAL, therefore DAL must conduct its dealings in accordance with the DAL PWA and it is binding and lawful.

 

[surplus1]

General,

Please understand that my references to restrictive scope clauses are not intended to be singling out and "picking on Delta pilots" specifically. The problem is by no means limited to DAL. This problem is a policy of ALPA, which is endorsed by all the major airlines that could do so, AAA, UAL, NWA, DAL, to a lesser extent CAL (not then in ALPA) and AA (represented by the APA). Even TWA, at a time when it desperately needed all the feed it could get, was limiting that feed with scope. My rhetoric is not anti-Delta per se, I'm against all of it and specifically opposed to the ALPA policy.

You are very correct when you say there is a limit to the number of RJs required. That is not different than any other type of aircraft. There is a limit to the number of triple sevens, 767's, 747's, DC-9's and anything else you can think of. The error lies in the attempt to isolate the RJ as though it were some sort of alien vessel. The RJ is an airliner, nothing more and nothing less. It isn't going to take over the world and replace any other aircraft type. How many RJ as used by the assorted airlines will ultimately be determined by market forces. It will not be determined by any Scope clause

The "restrictions" only become a problem when they are artificial. In turn they become artificial when they are the product of scope clauses and not market forces.

Everyone needs Scope and should have scope in their contract. However, scope is not and should not be a vehicle used to dictate what aircraft a company may operate either by type or number or where they should fly. That type of restriction is a misapplication of Scope and more importantly it is stupid.

I have no objection to you (as a pilot group) defining your work and who may do it. However, your Scope and that of the other legacy airlines attempts to define my work as well as your own. That you cannot do without my consent and it has not been given. When you attempt to do that you become not a protector of your own work but a predator of my work.

At one point in time you (at DAL) had no Scope at all. Then you created it. Next you created exemptions to it. The exemptions were an error. By the time you realized the error, the Company had already utilized the exemptions. New companies came into existence and began to do the work that you chose to give up, not because you had to but because you considered it to be beneath you. It was not imposed upon you, you got what you wanted. Now, after the fact, you want to reinvent the wheel and reverse your previous actions. Some would say "you're a day late and a dollar short."

You changed your scope again and drew a line in the sand at 70-seats (without limits). You really didn't have a right to draw that line, but it was not contested so that set a precedent; one that was essentially accepted by the other groups that by now were doing the work you hand rejected and subcontracting with your company. Once more, that did not satisfy you so you took yet another step. You limited the number of 70-seaters and restricted the operation of the 50-seaters (which has the effect of limiting them). Not only that, you did it in a way that promoted the company's ability to play the subsidiaries and the subcontractors against each other. Perhaps you'll say you never thought of that part, but I say it was deliberate. Well, that definitely got our attention and took the lid off Pandora's box. You threw down a gauntlet never expecting that we would pick it up. You were wrong.

As if that wasn't enough, you also believe that you can prevent by force an independent company from doing business with a third party that has no relationship to your own company. That last item caused the creation of Freedom Air and more recently Republic. It is now causing the cancellation of the ACA contract, which may well result in the furlough of some 300 ACA pilots. What will you do next? What new scheme will your lawyers (who by the way are theoretically our lawyers too -- pretty laughable isn't it) come up with on the next go around? Will you try again to transfer all of the 70-seaters to your side of the fence? Seeing as how you've been trying to do just that for several years, tell me why I should not believe that your negotiators are trying at this very moment. Tell me why I should believe that you will not try again when Section 6 comes around. Should I really be naïve enough to believe that your group is not using my future as a bargaining chip in your negotiations?

Your statement that "Dalpa gave (us) more relief" is ludicrous. You gave us nothing. The Company forced you into giving them more relief. There was nothing "generous" about your actions so spare me the implication. You did not do it because you wanted to, you did it because you had to. Some regional pilots are easily duped by that sort of mainline rhetoric. Few of them reside at Comair.

All of that would be fine except for two things. 1) There are people just like you who earn their living in the airlines that operate those smaller aircraft. 2) They are represented by the same labor union that represents you. What you consider to be your "reasonable" restrictions, limits and destroys the lives of other pilots in different airlines, none of whom agreed to be limited in that way.

When all of that failed because of the many loopholes in these assorted CBA's, you take yet another step and demand that your pilots be given super seniority at other airlines plus higher pay for the same work. The greatest irony in it all is that the very labor union that these small airplane pilots pay to represent their interests is actively promoting your interests at their expense and over their objections; a direct violation of the union's legal obligation to fairly represent its members.

I don't know if RJs can compete with the LCC's or not but I agree with the concept that they cannot. What I do know is that determination cannot be made by a Scope clause. I don't know if RJs will in fact clutter the airspace and saturate the ATC system. I do know that you can't decide that with a Scope clause. Market forces, operational decisions made by management and government control of airspace, properly determine these factors, not a Scope clause. Attempts to promote those concepts in defense of Scope are at best specious.

The idea that a particular pilot group has the right to tell a company, which does not employ any of its members, that it cannot enter into a legal contract with another company that has nothing to do with the first group is an absurdity in the extreme. And yes, that is exactly what ALPA/AAA told MASG. 'You MASG have a contract with AAA, therefore AAA's pilots have the right to prevent you from entering into a completely separate agreement with AWA.' Why? Because that separate contract will cause you to operate airplanes with 90-seats and WE, the Air Line Pilots Association, don't think you should. Or, 'you ACA can't have a contract with DAL to operate some 32-seat airplanes if you also operate some 120-seat airplanes.' Why? Because we the pilots of Delta Air Lines say so. I mean really, who the he!! Do you guys think you are? That kind of BS staggers the imagination.

Can you get away with it? Well, maybe you can because the Air Line Pilots Association has managed to brainwash a bunch of young pilots into believing that your employment by UAL, NWA, DAL, AAA, or CAL somehow gives you the "right" to do this because you belong to the "ruling class" and they are lesser beings, subservient to your wishes. You are not really working against their interests, you a "defending the profession". A high percentage of regional pilots actually believe that BS. At the same time, ALPA is more than willing to take the money of these young people and claim that it represents them.

Racial apartheid was an abomination and eventually it was defeated. This practice of pilot apartheid is no less an abomination and it too will be defeated. Your predatory scope clauses will ultimately be overturned by the courts and prohibited in the future.

Does that mean that all Scope will be eliminated? NO, it does not. It means that Scope will be returned to its legitimate purpose. Will that cause a fight for the 100-seat airplane? That depends on how you react. If you choose to accept the fact that you do not have the legal right to unilaterally decide the future of others and how their work is controlled, an agreement that establishes a legitimate dividing line can be reached. If you continue to believe that you can do as you please without regard for the impact of your actions on others, then it will create a fight for the 100-seat airplane and possibly all the rest as well. A fight that I don't think you can win.

If you really want to keep what you have over the long term, i.e., your high pay, excellent benefits and superior working conditions, you might be well advised to come down off the high horse and negotiate a reasonable dividing line to which we can both agree, thereby ending the dispute. If you won't do that, you'll have to deal with whatever consequence develops. You will still be able to retain the big airplanes, but the price you'll have to pay for that privilege will surely bring you to your senses.

One thing I'll tell you for sure and it is this: In my opinion, ALPA will never be able to impose a "Jets for Jobs" agreement on the Comair property. I don't think that Comair pilots will ever allow the pilots of another airline to displace them or force them to abdicate their seniority by any means other than a legitimate merger agreement reached via the standard protocols. Don't look for a pre-nuptial agreement that gives you all the marbles, you won't get it. You are big, you are strong, you are powerful, but you will not find us lacking in ball power.

Happy Easter