Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Delta MEC and Comair MEC working together on a deal?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I'd pay 2.5% dues if ALPA would get all the CRJ-900's and E-175's on the mainline side here. I say we bring them all over with the pilots that are now flying them. Staple them with protections so none of the captains get bumped out of their seat and nobody gets bumped out of their base. Having up to 255 of those jets at mainline rather than at the DCI carriers would be better for all of us. Then they could actually fly those 900's with more than 76 seats and nobody would care.
 
Could this be a part of the puzzle? Holly Hegemon's blog this week:
CVG - Nibbled to Death
Hello there, Godzilla here. I know it's been a while since I've graced the pages of PlaneBuzz, so to speak. I won't give the old "I've been too busy" because I hate when people use that as an excuse. No, I've not been too busy to write, perhaps I didn't think I had anything of value to add, though some would say I never let that stop me before. I've been filling my time doing some very un-airline/aviation stuff, some would say going back to my routes, er, roots. I'll fill you in later on that though, because I want to talk about the Texas - Two Step Delta is doing with their hub in Cincinnati.
An article on Cincinnati.com yesterday outlined Delta's plan to further reduce their CVG hub by another 12% this coming January. This cut follows a steady diet of previous reductions and downsizing/rightsizing or whatever the MBA catchphrase of the moment, that have been occurring for the past 4 years.
The truth is that reducing or eliminating CVG as a hub made sense even without the merger of Northwest, but adding the three NW hubs to the mix (affectionately known as Snow-town, Mo-town, and No-town), CVG is definitely superfluous. The problem is that the DL/NW merger is supposed to be a merger of addition and not subtraction. Uh-huh. According to the article January 2009 flying from CVG will be 33% less than January 2008.
As I said, that makes sense. What is irritating is the PR spin being put on the bad news so that the community actually thinks it is good news. Speaking about the announced reductions, the chairman of the Kenton County Airport Board, which controls CVG operations said -
"This is good news in that it keeps things pretty much as they are, but I would not say it is wonderful news,"
Well Mr. Chairman, the news might be good but the truth is not-so-good. Fully 85% of the operations at CVG will be in RJ equipment, and the number of banks at CVG will be reduced from 9 to 5. Glen Hauenstein is the person in charge of rationalizing the two route systems, which is not an easy task. However turning CVG into an RJ hub and giving it until the summer of 2009 to turn a profit is akin to throwing a drowning man an anchor.
"We really wanted to keep the hub there because of its location, layout and the great facilities, but it took us awhile to figure out how to do it," Hauenstein said. "So Delta is now reaffirming its commitment to the Cincinnati hub through the summer season of next year and then we'll take another barometer reading on how the economy is doing."
That's nice. We all remember how well the Independence Airlines hub did at IAD, right? They helped prove that the RJ isn't a low cost machine, it's a point-to-point O&D bird. Taking the wrong airplane and running it through a hub that used to have 9 banks and now will only have 5 means that the cost of operation at CVG for DL is going to be higher. The only semi-good news in all of this is that the CVG fares are high, which means DL will lose money more slowly, unless the economy continues to tank.
Although I don't agree with it, I understand the need to be politically sensitive to air service issues, especially during a merger. Perhaps if I had been more politically correct my airline career would have been longer, though this is more fun anyway. But DL is better off saying as little as possible about it rather than trying to spin the reduction as a way to "coordinate times between two hubs [DTW and CVG]".
"That way we can offer two medium-sized hubs with better connectivity and efficiency to compete with one mega-hub (for rivals American and United) in Chicago," Hauenstein said. "This is all about connections and making those more plentiful. Now we can offer a traveler in say, Albany, connections through Atlanta, JFK, Detroit, Minneapolis and yes, Cincinnati - you get something nobody has been able to offer you before. And Cincinnati is a part of all of that."
Well it sounds to me like a phased reduction into oblivion, which by the way Is a good decision. The spin doctors should have left this one alone though.
 
Heyas,

FWIW...Bastian said yesterday at MSP's town hall meeting that Delta is getting out of the RJ business: "No more RJs and too many 50 seaters".

Nu
 
Well define an RJ. I think he is only referring to 50 seat jets. They still like the CSAM on the 70 and 76 seat jets.
 
My idea was shot down because ALPA policy specifically stated that the parties could not go in to a PID with seniority demands/positions.

That's not correct at all. ALPA merger policy does not prohibit two airline pilot groups from resolving their SLI without invoking ALPA merger policy or establishing a PID. The latest example is DAL/NWA, no PID.
 
Last edited:
FDJ2:

Of course ALPA policy does not prohibit mutual agreement. Even so, the NWA/DAL merger needed Prater's approval to deviate from the process in Section 45 of the Admin Manual.

I refer to an instance where there was not mutual agreement. Coming from a minority position they viewed the Admin Manual procedures as a sequential checklist where each condition had to be met before proceeding to the next step. Any deviation would have been reason in itself to kill a politically unpopular request.

If your point is that they should have sought mutual agreement before running to the Board with a PID, your point is well taken. Hell, that's what I told them a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
FDJ2:

Of course ALPA policy does not prohibit mutual agreement.

Even so, the NWA/DAL merger needed Prater's approval to deviate from the process in Section 45 of the Admin Manual.

I refer to an instance where there was not mutual agreement. Coming from a minority position they viewed the procedures as a sequential checklist.

If your point is that they should have sought mutual agreement before running to the Board with a PID, your point is well taken, and that was the lesson being referred to.

Obviously, if there is no mutual agreement you will never get a list outside of the PID. Perhaps the reason there was no mutual agreement is because ASA/CMR MEC's never asked to be stapled in the event of a merger, as a matter of fact, the rhetoric at the time was quite clear, they intended to invoke ALPA merger policy and allow the process to run it's course, which of course ends with arbitration. No, they wanted something other than a staple.

Regardless, water under the bridge.


PREAMBLE
The role of ALPA in seniority integration is solely to provide the process by which the affected pilot groups on ALPA airlines arrive at the merged seniority list for presentation to management, through their respective merger representatives, using arbitration if necessary. Responsibility for the merged seniority list falls upon the respective merger representatives with ALPA National in a neutral position on the merits. It must be understood that what appears to be truly "fair and equitable" often differs depending upon the eyes of the beholder and that there may be no consensus of what is "fair and equitable." This policy does not preclude two or more ALPA pilot groups from entering into discussions and/or reaching an agreement without invoking this process. (SOURCE - Executive Board May 1991; AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)
 
Last edited:
Nevermind - water under the dam. Thanks for the reply.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom