CMR 170's to Dash's...what happened??

[bvt1151]

what do you think the odds are that the LOA survives Bk?

Not a chance. Best case scenario, the judge drops the snapback if jets don't arrive and freeze is extended.

Again...best case.

 

[Texx]

No the LOA does say 25 70 seat JETS. Fred told me firsthand, that the Q400s would be IN ADDITION TO, not in leu of the 25 LOA aircraft.

BTW: Anyone remember how many CRJ and EMB170s USAIR recieved financing for WHILE THEY WERE IN CHAPTER 11? You can finance anything, you just may not get the terms you want.

No, the LOA states Paragraph H.

"Guaranteed Aircraft Deliveries / Minimum Fleet Guarantee
...No Less than twenty - five (25) such aircraft shall be FAA certificated at no less than seventy (70) passenger seats."

I'm sorry. Where did it say jets?

>>Fred told me.<<

hahahahahahahahaha

You must be new to the airline game. Don't trust what someone tells you but read the fine print before you sign on the line.

 

[ILS2DH]

The LOA just says 70 passenger seats, but FB has been telling recurrent classes that the Q400s would not count. Maybe he misread it? I know the intention was for EMB-170s or CRJ-700s.

Here's another interesting point - pay would be at current 70 seat rates "for any CL-700 or EMB-170 aircraft acquired by Company". Does that mean they'll be looking for a different pay rate on a Q400?

 

[bvt1151]

Does that mean they'll be looking for a different pay rate on a Q400?

Most likely.

 

[Nindiri]

Assuming there are no other 70 seaters, what happens if you don't agree on a Q-400 payrate? Does the LOA become null and void resulting in a snapback?

 

[C425Driver]

I think it's obvious that Phreddy never had a plan for 70's at Comair. His only goal was to get concessions from the pilots. He achieved that goal with the greatest of ease and now he has 18 months of concessions from the pilots.

Hat's off to ya Phreddy!

C425Driver

 

[wrigley23]

Forgive me if I'm misinformed...and this isn't meant to start a war...

But I was just wondering, and this seemed to have fallen by the wayside as to what has come of this situation.

So, Fred asked for a pay freeze that saved an amount that probably couldn't buy A 170. Ok fine.

"I see 170's in our future" - FB

Then there was a 170 on the property for you guys to climb all over...things actually seemed to be going according to plan.

Flash forward. You have gotten some used 50's and theres talk now of yes, 70 seat aircraft, but they might just be Dash 8's?? WTF Over?!

No offense to the new Dash, nice avionics and fuel effeciency..yea yea. But, you can't seriously tell me that this was the plan here. What exactly happened??

From a neutral standpoint it smells like Bullsh!t. They gave the ComAir pilots boners(and hard nipples, ladies) for new planes, made the Canadians sh!t their pants with a superior product from the jungle on your property, and in hindsight you guys have given up potential cash and are icing blue-balls wondering if it was all worth it.

ASA got planes without taking a freeze OR consessions. Was this smoke and mirrors to get the Canadians to sell even cheaper??

Bluntly, were you guys Duped or not?

Hauy! If you were offered a jet hotdog or a prop hotdog which one would you eat? Either one is the same size, juicy, and delicious! All depends on the amount of slaw, mustard and ketsup you have on it! Hauy!

(please, no one take this seriously except Traumahawk!)

(How's life at Chau,mid,repub, or whatever?)

 

[Traumahawk]

HAAUYY!! You answrd' my question Norm. Nice job....by the way...call me wiskers. Otherwise I'll bite your ear off...you've been warned! Cubs Win, Cubs win!!


Republishuttlequa is great. I'm still in therapy for the constant flashbacks from our old job. Not as often though lately. Could be a plus. You still in the Nasty? I heard a couple rookies passed their checkrides up there this week....



Suhhyaaaa--

T-Hawk

 

[surplus1]

Once Delta declares bankruptcy, arguments about which brand of jet and Q400(s) will all be moot.

Comair and ASA will both be dragged into BK along with Delta. All contracts will become subject to renegotiation, including the Comair LOA.

That is no different from what would have happened without the LOA, except that the LOA will now have to be negotiated along with the rest, whereas without it, there would be no chance of negotiating it while in bankruptcy.

The Comair contract is today better than it was before the LOA, so we're in a better position in bankruptcy than we would have been without it.

Given that Delta is almost certain to go Chapter 11, we will all be negotiating for survival, including The General.

The only thing guaranteed is that everyone will loose something in bankruptcy. We just don't know what or how much as yet. Who will fare better is pure conjecture at this point.

Keep your chin up and keep a cool head. We were in a much more critical situation during our strike at Comair than we are today and we didn't roll over and play dead. There is no reason we should do so now. Bankruptcy won't be a bed of roses under any circumstance but the sky isn't falling, yet.

Prepare for battle; it is coming. Even though this war is not of our making, we must be willing to fight. We were once able to do so and hold our own. If those of you that have joined us since will keep the solidarity that was our greatest asset then, we can make it through the pending crisis just as we made it through that one. Unity is not only our best weapon, it may well be our only weapon. Don't lose it.

 

[bvt1151]

The Comair contract is today better than it was before the LOA, so we're in a better position in bankruptcy than we would have been without it.

That's a bold statement, however for those of us who can step back and take a rational look at things, its a very true statement.

 

[Whitestoneclimb]

Once Delta declares bankruptcy, arguments about which brand of jet and Q400(s) will all be moot.

Comair and ASA will both be dragged into BK along with Delta. All contracts will become subject to renegotiation, including the Comair LOA.

A judge has to approve an abrogation of a contract. They (management) can't just come in and do what they want. At least, not right away.

 

[surplus1]

A judge has to approve an abrogation of a contract. They (management) can't just come in and do what they want. At least, not right away.

I agree with you. I never said the contracts would be abrogated, I said they would be subject to renegotiation.

You can refuse to negotiate if you wish. If you do that and the Company decides to get nasty, what a judge will do or not do is anybody's guess. Just don't count on bankruptcy judges taking labor's side.

 

[surplus1]

The LOA just says 70 passenger seats, but FB has been telling recurrent classes that the Q400s would not count. Maybe he misread it? I know the intention was for EMB-170s or CRJ-700s.

Gentlemen, please do not be so hasty as to assume that the LOA is not talking about jets or that Fred is misreading it. Just because the term "jets" is not used in paragraph "H", that doesn't mean that the LOA is talking about just any airplane with 70-seats. Paragraph "B" refers to type specific pay rates, both aircraft are "jets". Paragraph "H" talks about adding 35 aircraft to the "164 currently in revenue service on the date of this LOA". 25 such aircraft will have 70-seats.

There were no aircraft "currently in revenue service" other than jets at the time of the LOA. It's pretty obvious that the entire LOA speaks to the "jet aircraft" being operated at the time it was signed with a caveat that allows the E-170 and establishes its pay rate as the same as the CRJ700.

An attempt to substitue a Q400 for the 70-seat jets, would be no different than replacing all 164 "currently in revenue service" with turboprops.

It is pretty obvious to me that the LOA is referencing the same kinds of aircraft now in service, all of which are jets. If we had both jets and turboprops, it would be up for grabs, but we didn't then and we don't now. In my opinion, the introduction of a Q400, while not prohibited, in place of the 70-seat jet would violate the contract.

IF this was done without the consent of the MEC, I would expect a grievance to be filed immediately.

I'm quite sure that Fred knows this and that is why he says the Q400 would not count. It would not.

If you really have a doubt about this contact the MEC. I'm sure they can clarify the intent of the LOA.

Rule Number 1 = Never give away a contractual provision because you "think" it might mean something different. You should not even be "suggesting" that it might.

The intent of the LOA is 35 more jets, 25 of which will either be the CRJ700 or the EMB170, not some turboprop not matter how many seats it may have. Please! Let's not start playing the bait-and-switch game with our contract.

Do NOT take my word for this. Please call your status rep or your MEC if you have any doubts.

Here's another interesting point - pay would be at current 70 seat rates "for any CL-700 or EMB-170 aircraft acquired by Company". Does that mean they'll be looking for a different pay rate on a Q400?

Yes, it does mean that pay rates for any other type of equipment would have to be negotiated. That includes the Q400 or the EMB190 or anything samaller or bigger than we have now or that is not a jet.

JM .02

 

[surplus1]

That's a bold statement, however for those of us who can step back and take a rational look at things, its a very true statement.

Bold as it may seem one thing is true. You never win a game if you start out believe you will lose.

We must always take a "rational look at things", and never look at the glass as half empty. It is always half full or better. Failure is not an option.

 

[doh]

... It should be made absolutely clear that any Q-400's are completely independent of the LOA.

That's a fact Jack! Not that it will matter, what with Delta (read the worst pos ever) dragging us into bk because of their ineptitude. We can look forward to some judge imposed changes. Operations like Delta always try to make some one else pay for at least part of their mistakes.

 

[Texx]

It is pretty obvious to me...

The intent of the LOA is 35 more jets, 25 of which will either be the CRJ700 or the EMB170, Please call your status rep or your MEC if you have any doubts.

Well when it comes to an arbitration your opinion means absolutly nothing.

When it comes to intent, there are 2 way to accomplish this.

!. A written contract or agrement that is clear and unambiguous. The paragraph should have stated that the aircraft will be either a jet aircraft or one of the two aircraft listed.

2. A verbal meeting of the minds. If the intent of paragraph "H" was only for jets there would of had to be verbal agreement that the paragraph was only about jet aircraft.

Becareful what "you" think it means. What you read is not always what the other person see.

P.S. Read the second paragraph in paragraph H. "It is the intent of the Company..." There is nothing of the company's intent to buy a jet. This is the paragraph that will kill you in an arbitration.

 

[bvt1151]

That's a fact Jack! Not that it will matter, what with Delta (read the worst pos ever) dragging us into bk because of their ineptitude. We can look forward to some judge imposed changes. Operations like Delta always try to make some one else pay for at least part of their mistakes.

You're absolutely right. Everything is in the air in Chapter 11. Surplus makes a valid point in that bk judges don't tend to look favorably on labor contracts.

 

[BenderGonzales]

What difference does it make? The Q400 is a 70 seater -- it would get 70 seater pay rates.

It is slower than the CR7 so guys would get a pay RAISE to fly it.

If I were at Comair, i'd be like "Bring em' on!!!"

 

[FDJ2]

The Q-400's were mentioned by Fred the first week he was here. They are not part of the 25 70-seaters. If Q-400's show up, there will still be 25 70-seat jets or the LOA will snap back next December.

Fred's "dream" is to operate Q-400's on a pro-rate basis (as opposed to fee for departure) in some lucrative markets where t-props are still profitable. It should be made absolutely clear that any Q-400's are completely independent of the LOA.

From May 2005:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bvt1151

Q400's will not arrive in lieu of 70-seat RJ's resultant of the LOA.




Are you sure of that? Where in your concessions for growth LOA does it specify that the growth aircraft you purchased through your voluntary concessions will be CRJs?


Paragraph H. Guaranteed Aircraft Deliveries/Minimum Fleet Guarantee

1. The Company shall purchase, lease or otherwise take delivery and place in revenue service thirty-five (35) aircraft in addition to the 164 currently in revenue service on the date of this LOA. No less than twenty-five (25) such aircraft shall be FAA certified at no less than seventy (70) passenger seats.


2. The Company shall take delivery and place in revenue service the additional thirty-five (35) aircraft as follows:

a. No less than eighteen (18) aircraft by December 31, 2006, including no less than eight (8) aircraft certified for not less than seventy (70) passenger seats. The fleet shall consist of and be maintained at no less than 182 aircraft in revenue service by December 31, 2006.

 

[FDJ2]

It is pretty obvious to me that the LOA is referencing the same kinds of aircraft now in service, all of which are jets.

It's pretty obvious you presume too much. The LOA guarantees 70 seat aircraft, with no mention of power plants.



Paragraph H. Guaranteed Aircraft Deliveries/Minimum Fleet Guarantee

1. The Company shall purchase, lease or otherwise take delivery and place in revenue service thirty-five (35) aircraft in addition to the 164 currently in revenue service on the date of this LOA. No less than twenty-five (25) such aircraft shall be FAA certified at no less than seventy (70) passenger seats.


2. The Company shall take delivery and place in revenue service the additional thirty-five (35) aircraft as follows:

a. No less than eighteen (18) aircraft by December 31, 2006, including no less than eight (8) aircraft certified for not less than seventy (70) passenger seats. The fleet shall consist of and be maintained at no less than 182 aircraft in revenue service by December 31, 2006.