Comair will NOT get the 30 Dorniers???

[Dave Benjamin]

NYRangers,

I thought that scope was the ONLY thing that the Mesa pilots got in their last contract. Johnny O cant operate an alter-ego carrier over there.

No?

I haven't read their contract but it may state that all flying done by the Mesa air group has to be performed by pilots on the seniority list. Anotherwords multiple certificates may not be prohibited but the flying has to be done by pilots on the Mesa list. Does that make sense?

 

[46Driver]

I haven't read their contract but it may state that all flying done by the Mesa air group has to be performed by pilots on the seniority list. Anotherwords multiple certificates may not be prohibited but the flying has to be done by pilots on the Mesa list. Does that make sense?

That is exactly how it works at ACA. 2 certificates: ACA and ACJet but all revenue flying for ACAI corporation has to be done by pilots on the ACAI seniority lists.

Actually, it goes a little deeper than that at ACA because I think there was an out with the use of the legal term "revenue". I don't have a copy of the contract here but I distinctly remember there was the possibility management could have found a way around our scope if Virgin bought a minority interest. Nothin' is ever as simple as it seems.......

 

[surplus1]

I thought our contract said we couldn't have a DCI affiliate with anything larger than 70 seats---but I guess they will get around it somehow. Very interesting indeed!!?!

I've tried to tell you many times that there are quite a few things that you all think your contract says that exist only in your thinking or because they have not yet been legally challenged.

The legal professions exist because lawyers differ.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Medflyer responded to my post,

"I don't know why you see this as Comair/DL wasting money. From a financial standpoint, bringing the DoJets on the property will be extremely costly to DL. It's best financially that they stay with ACA....let ACA deal with the training and maintenance costs."

I agree completely with your conclusion but you missed my point.
There are many factors in this contrived process called the RFP. If money was the sole criteria, then of course it would be best if the dORPHANS stayed right where they are.

But despite good financial sense sticking with ACA, DL might want to terminate the agreement anyway. They would be doing it at great expense at a time when they can hardly afford it. They do not want to provide seed money to the next potential LCC like Jet Blue or Air Tran who seem to be eating their lunch these days.

They did it before during our strike and they are stupid enough to do it again. That was my point.

 

[N2264J]

Comair will not...

I give up. A few facts:

1) All flying for ACAI will be done by pilots on the ACAI seniority list.

It depends on how much ACA management wants the Delta
lift. Starting another airline venture would require all the revenue a new Low Cost Carrier could muster. You have 80 or so CL-65s that aren't that good for a LCC because of the high seat-per-mile costs.

So what if ACAI forms another holding company for the Airbuses? Your contract won't cover the new entity. Republic was formed to get around the Chatauqua pilots "No" vote on Jets for Jobs. Freedom and Mid Atlantic were formed to get around a scope clause.

You seem to have a lot of faith in your management to take care of you. Bad ju-ju. Since ALPA signaled management that alter egos were OK with their Jets for Jobs protocol, I suspect all airline managements want at least one alter ego airline to drive down the cost of labor. ACA does not exist in a vacuum.

And by the way, don't get me wrong - I'm not wishing any of this on ACA pilots but there are penalties for a temporary lapse in situational awareness.

As for the RJDC, all I ever see is how they want to get rid of ACA flying Delta Connection and take away my job so why should I care?

Be specific. Where exactly do you see that?

 

[46Driver]

One more time and then I really do give up.

1) ACA would very much like to be rid of the Dorniers.

2) The Delta contract is only marginally profitable at best.

3) It doesn't matter if ACAI forms 1,2, 97, 462, 5764, number of your choice, other holding companies (ACA and ACJet are the 2 operating certificates we have now) -- ALL REVENUE FLYING FOR ACAI MUST BE PERFORMED BY PILOTS ON THE ACAI SENIORITY LIST.

Just what is not sinking in to your brain housing group?

 

[Always deferred]

46Driver,

I think it is a simple case of someone being jealous and wanting to send a poopoo party on those who have recently been adorned with good news. I wouldn't waste my time with them anymore. They're the type who makes up for their sorrow by trying to bring everyone else down.

Frats
AD

 

[GogglesPisano]

Re: Comair will not...

It depends on how much ACA management wants the Delta
lift. Starting another airline venture would require all the revenue a new Low Cost Carrier could muster. You have 80 or so CL-65s that aren't that good for a LCC because of the high seat-per-mile costs.

So what if ACAI forms another holding company for the Airbuses? Your contract won't cover the new entity. Republic was formed to get around the Chatauqua pilots "No" vote on Jets for Jobs. Freedom and Mid Atlantic were formed to get around a scope clause.

You seem to have a lot of faith in your management to take care of you. Bad ju-ju. Since ALPA signaled management that alter egos were OK with their Jets for Jobs protocol, I suspect all airline managements want at least one alter ego airline to drive down the cost of labor. ACA does not exist in a vacuum.

And by the way, don't get me wrong - I'm not wishing any of this on ACA pilots but there are penalties for a temporary lapse in situational awareness.



Be specific. Where exactly do you see that?

Nothing like pulling stuff out of your pooper to try to rain on every else's parade. Your hypotheticals are completely devoid of rational analysis.

1) I don't believe a "holding company" can create another "holding company." Our scope is airtight.

2) Our management really doesn't care about the 328's or the DL side. If they could find a way to be rid of those airplanes with minimal cost, they will, if only to concentrate our resources fully on Independence Air.

3) Have you read the latest analysis of our business plan by UBS Warburg's Richard Ashcroft? It seems at least a few people on The Street are changing their tune about our venture vis-a-vis CRJ's. An better ratio of Airbusses to CRJ's would be nice, to be sure (I see this occuring once we start making cash.)

As far as the "ACA-management-will-make-a-deal-with-Delta-for-a-Jets-for-Job-agreement-because-ACA-so-desperately-needs-the-Delta-agreement" conspiracy theory, I think we can deconstruct that as being the paranoid ramblings of someone who is very strongly against Jets for Jobs/ALPA/another pilot group's success.

BTW: The last thing a new airline (or an airline transitioning to a LCC) needs is an angry pilot group. Labor management-relations have never been this amicable at ACA, both sides have a renewed respect for the other (aero2003.org)

I like the disclaimer at the end about hoping your conspiracy theory doesn't come to fruition and best of luck to all the ACA guys blah blah blah.

Then again, this message board is all about guys pulling things out of their poopers.

 

[House_X]

The USA Today article has no implications on what will happen to the Dorniers. Of course ACA is going to say "we're keeping the contract".

The Dornier is a mystery, located inside an enigma and wrapped up in a conundrum. Who knows what the future will bring.

 

[N2264J]

Comair will not...

Just what is not sinking in to your brain housing group?

What an interesting exercise in communication.

I pose a scenario - an example based on current events to illustrate the thrust and intent of the RJDC lawsuit against
ALPA then ask the question to see if anyone could relate and better understand the core issue.

Incredibly, the thread has turned into highlighting my bitter jealousy toward Independence pilots while picking the scenario apart and avoiding an answer.

You people have a future in politics.

 

[GogglesPisano]

We have responded in detail. ACA has a scope clause. All flying will be done by ACA seniority list pilots. Our MEC shot down the idea of a J-for-J program a long time ago and therefore it will not happen.

If J-for-J happens at another airline, it is because that airline's pilot group:

1) Had no scope clause, or
2) Voted to approve a J-for-J deal, or
3) Their MEC ratified the agreement, in which case the pilot group has the option of recalling their MEC

 

[FDJ2]

Re: Re: Comair will not...

Nothing like pulling stuff out of your pooper to try to rain on every else's parade. Your hypotheticals are completely devoid of rational analysis.

You've broken the RJDC code book.

 

[BlueRidger]

There was a Crew Room meeting with the DO and the 4th in command at ACA. They were in CVG to dispel some of the rumors and observe the operation. I hope they saw DAL's excellent deice operation in full swing. During the meeting they said that ACA does not have a problem with DAL and the Airbusses but that it was a problem with DAL and DALPA (as we all know). If Delta wants to break the contract they can do this at any time for any reason but that they must give 6 months notice. They also said very emphatically that NO NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN. SO THE DORNIERS WILL BE AT ACA FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 6 MONTHS!!!
The Airbuses are scheduled to be online in November or August depending on UAL and other factors. So at that time ACA will cause DAL to be out of compliance with DALPA's contract. At that time DALPA can file a grievance. Delta can then accept it and send ACA 6 months notice. Or Delta can fight the grievance and who knows how that will go OR if DALPA wants to waste the negotiating capital on 30 32 seat planes. This means that the DORPHANS (good name) will be at ACA for probably at least another year.

ACA got very favorable leases for the Dojets. Especially engine leases. If they transfer the aircraft, these leases usually won't transfer and I bet Pratt and Witney is itching to get out of those leases. This will make the dojets even more expensive to operate and not economically viable to any other company to operate as a cost plus service, including Delta.

As for J4J... bring it on...DAL pilots can have any slot left after we bring back all of our furloughs. On the other hand if one looks at the bottom of our seniority list they will see many names of people who left ACA for DAL and were furloughed from DAL then rehired at ACA (some are furloughed again.)

 

[N2264J]

Comair will not...

We have responded in detail.

No one has answered the question yet. Using my ACA example as an illustration, do you better understand the grievance and the intent of the RJDC lawsuit?

I do agree with you that I am jealous but it's not because your airline is getting bigger planes. From what I've been able to gleen so far, it's because:

- Your management is going to take care of you and will go out of their way to avoid labor unrest.

- ALPA is looking out for your best interest.

- Unlike every other airline in the union, you have airtight scope.

- Jets for Jobs is not possible on your property because it just can't happen.

 

[46Driver]

I just woke up, refreshed, and will take one more crack at this.

Jets for Jobs is a travesty - no one is going to dispute that.

Me - and many others - do not give a d@mn about the RJDC one way or another.

At ACA, there is NO incentive for management to try and instigate a jets for jobs program because:

ACA is not making a profit with the Delta Connection contract here in the short term.

ACA wants to get rid of the Dorniers in the long term due to high maintenance costs and lack of support with Fairchild Dornier's bankruptcy.

Delta has already said that we could fly the Dorniers under our ACJet operating certificate and there would be no conflict with DALPA's scope clause - ACA's response was, "No Thanks" and is hoping DALPA will force Delta to take the DoJets off of our hands.

FOLLOW THE MONEY - it is a better business decision to drop the DoJets and the Delta Connection contract, it would also cost some money to have labor unrest at the beginning of a new startup.

 

[Tim47SIP]

46driver

Delta has already said that we could fly the Dorniers under our ACJet operating certificate and there would be no conflict with DALPA's scope clause - ACA's response was, "No Thanks" and is hoping DALPA will force Delta to take the DoJets off of our hands.

Hey, was this actually put out in this manner. I haven't read anything official that insinuates this, but I have read several references that state that ACA does indeed want to keep the Delta contract as that is 28% (?) or so of their operating profit. I also remember a reference (2 months ago) by ACA management that stated they had a work around for the DALPA PWA and that keeping the contract was not going to be an issue. Seems to me that the best thing for Delta to do is get rid of those aircraft all together and replace the routes with Comair aircraft since they are situated in that region already. My gut feeling is that ACA will keep the routes untill Delta management is forced (by DALPA) to sever it's relationship with ACA. It will cost Delta management because it will be they that has to give notice. ACA signed their contract with Delta way before the PWA was signed and is/was not bound by the 71 plus seat rule (per ACA's contract).
Should be interesting, but I bet the DoJets will be around for a while, alot longer than many people think.

 

[46Driver]

I would guess that the operating profit is closer to 2.8% or maybe even 0.28%..... And if the DoJets go back to Delta, I don't know if the Pratt and Whitney engine contract goes with it. Nobody wants the DoJets, so my bet is that ACA and Delta maintain the status quo regardless of when Independence Air starts up. I am curious to hear what the mainline Delta pilots think.

 

[Patriot328]

IAnd if the DoJets go back to Delta, I don't know if the Pratt and Whitney engine contract goes with it.

Man if the engine contract (warranty) doesn't go with the planes, whoever gets the jets would be better off to just dig a hole that could hold all 33 airplanes, fill it with money (no small bills $50s and $100s please), and set it on fire....

 

[46Driver]

Man if the engine contract (warranty) doesn't go with the planes, whoever gets the jets would be better off to just dig a hole that could hold all 33 airplanes, fill it with money (no small bills $50s and $100s please), and set it on fire....

Maybe we can sell them to Johnny O..... with no engine contracts and no 1vE panels.......

 

[House_X]

Man if the engine contract (warranty) doesn't go with the planes, whoever gets the jets would be better off to just dig a hole that could hold all 33 airplanes, fill it with money (no small bills $50s and $100s please), and set it on fire....

That was funny.

I agree w/ 46driver regarding our Delta contract. Someone else mentioned Delta has no problem with us flying Airbuses. No way. There is no reason why Delta would not fight us on this one. We are directly competing with Song and mainline Delta. Why would Delta pay us to help fuel competition against themselves? When those Airbuses show up in IAD, and the next day you see a bunch of CHQ or MESA emb-135's at the CVG alpha gates...DON"T BE SUPRISED!!!!