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

[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.