ERJ-195, B717, B737-600, Airbus 318?

[hopeful]

If Ual goes TU, you can bet Frontier will poise themselves to pick up a lot of the slack left in DEN.

So will SWA. This will be a highly sought after market. All bets are off if UAL goes TU. Carriers that had not thought of going to Denver will now be fighting over it.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Hawk and KFFA,

There is no loophole. The only reason that Delta is able to codeshare with CAL and NWA is that we gave our permission for that specific proposal, and that one only. The prohibition against any of our other domestic codeshare partners operating ANY jets larger than 70 seats is still in effect, and it is not subject to forced majeure. Hope that helps.

P.S.
I don't know why it is "common knowledge" that we are renegotiating our contract. The fact is, we are not negotiating anything right now. Chances are, mgt may come asking for concessions, but they have not done so yet; So while we might negotiate in the future, we are not doing so now.

PPS
I cannot envision any scenario when we would allow any DCI partner to ever operate anything over 70 seats. Most think that 70 seats were too many, there would be an absolute mutiny if that limit were ever raised. Of course, that is just my opinion; I have been wrong before!

Fly safe

 

[~~~^~~~]

The only reason that Delta is able to codeshare with CAL and NWA is that we gave our permission for that specific proposal, and that one only. The prohibition against any of our other domestic codeshare partners operating ANY jets larger than 70 seats is still in effect, and it is not subject to forced majeure. Hope that helps.

I cannot envision any scenario when we would allow any DCI partner to ever operate anything over 70 seats.

What gives Delta pilots the right to set seat limits on aircraft being flown at Skywest for United?

Don't know if you have followed the situation at Republic (aka Chautauqua) where ALPA's jets for jobs program was ample justification for abrogating the Chautauqua pilots' working agreement by starting up a subsidiary that falls outside of Chautauqua's scope.

The only thing that closes that loop hole in your contract is use of "domestic air carrier" in your prohibition. However, that is so overly broad that it generates a restraint of trade, limiting the tools and methods of production, which is not protected in labor's exemption from anti trust regulation.

If ALPA gets challenged on this there is little they can do than to lose the definition and go back to using scope as a labor tool. There is no reason why Delta pilots should control flying Skywest does for another airline and the law reflects that common sense approach.

Regards,
~~~^~~~

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Fins,

You are correct. We have no right to limit the size of the airplanes skywest fies for UAL. However, we do have the right to approve the airlines with whom DAL codeshares. This is both legal and common. Skywest has the right to purchase and operate any airplanes they want. However, if they were to do so, we have the contractual right to force DAL to look elsewhere for their connection carrier needs. This is not a limit on skywest, it is a limit on Delta management.

 

[Russ]

Is it not semantics? The implied threat is that the SkyWest contract would be viewed as open to discussion by D Pilots because they fly larger jets for UA or elsewhere. Perhaps it was not your intent to convey it that way, but I read it as your contract contains some veiled threat against regionals that fly larger aircraft. Sorry if I took it wrong. I don't dispute your legal right, but why would Dalpa consider reviewing the contract with SkyWest because they fly 70 or more seats for another carrier?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Because according to our contract, they would have to. They are not allowed to codeshare with any domestic carrier that operates more than 70 seat airplanes without our permission.

Does that mean that skywest cannot purchase larger airplanes? No. They can do whatever they choose. However, Delta would then need our permission to codeshare with them.

This is not a veiled threat against anyone, and I apologize if it sounded that way. It is simply a negotiated (and legal) clause in our contract that gives us some degree of control over whom Delta chooses as a codeshare partner.

 

[Russ]

I understand what your saying as far as it being a requirement of the contract. My question is why would Dalpa even consider reviewing SkyWest's contract with Delta if they flew larger jets under UA colors? What in that scenario scares Dalpa so much as to negotiate that right into the contract? Thanks for the answers.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Gentlemen:

Unlike the DOT, the FTC does actively regulate restraint of trade and anti-competitive practices within its clearance and mandate. If Skywest announced an intent to purchase larger aircraft and if ALPA (Delta MEC, same thing) moved to restrict the sale, it would be an FTC matter. And no, the semantics don't matter.

Businesses, including unions, which engage in illegal restraints of trade always look for loop holes to make their actions legal. That is why FTC cases are based on the effect, not the cause. Certainly, the loss of DL as a codeshare partner is a restraint on both DL and Skywest.

Now this restraint would be legal if it could be argued that (Delta MEC's) ALPA's control of Skywest's flying was a labor allocation issue. But, this defense has no credibility on Skywest codeshare on non-Delta flying.

One of ALPA's missions has been to keep the 90 seaters out of the market and Duane Woerth's statements about 70 seaters are enough to show an intent to do the same with those airframes too! This is one area where ALPA has crossed the line into "tools and methods of production" which brings them into the purview of the FTC.

Look at the FTC's effective handling of the prescriptive drug industry - how would ALPA like a little helping of that action? Also, ALPA, being a political body, is much less sophisticated a defendant than branded pharmaceutical drug companies. If ALPA ventures far renough in, the FTC may take an interest.

~~~^~~~

 

[~~~^~~~]

They are not allowed to codeshare with any domestic carrier that operates more than 70 seat airplanes without our permission. ....It is simply a negotiated (and legal) clause in our contract that gives us some degree of control over whom Delta chooses as a codeshare partner.

No, it is an illegal restraint of trade. Delta currently codeshares with ASA, Comair, Chautauqua, American Eagle, ACA, Aeromexico, Air France, Alitalia, CSA Czech Airlines, Korean Air, South African, Northwest, Mesa, Continental, Jet Express, Mesaba, Pinnacle and who else am I forgetting?

No - FlyDeltaJets - your are so right - restricting the types of airplanes any of these airlines can operate and still do business with Delta is not a restraint on trade, not at all. After all, this is only like - what - 30% - 40% of the World market? Where is your grip on reality?

 

[Ty Webb]

I don't even have a dog in this fight, and I have to weigh in here.

First, if you take the time to read his post again, you will see that he said Delta couldn;t code share with a DOMESTIC carrier.

Second, DAL most certainly can restrict what Skywest will fly . . . ever hear of a "no-compete clause"?

Third, you must be a real joy to work with. No one likes a pompous ass, especially when he's wrong.

Over and out.

 

[Russ]

Ty
Please explain the no compete clause you mentioned. Thanks.

 

[Ty Webb]

I haven't seen the actual agreement that DAL has with Skywest (and I doubt anyone on this board has) but you can bet that it contains a "no compete" clause- it is a standard business practice.

DAL spends a huge amount of money establishing market share, there is no way that they are going to build a route, only to let Skywest compete against them on that route when their agreement is up.

Copy?

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I think it's more complex than a "No compete" clause. Currently SkyWest walks a very tight line being codeshare partners with both Delta and United, about 50% each. There are markets each won't let us compete in because they directly affect the other. For example we have lots of United RJs flying out of LAX but Air Whisky flies the LAX-SLC flight for United. Delta doesn't want us competing directly on those flights. But if a passenger were flying from say SLC to PHX on Delta they would go on us. If they chose to fly United they would go on either mainline United or Air Whisky from SLC-LAX and then on us again from LAX to PHX. Delta could say that we are competing against them and we are, but they allow it. There are many markets like this (TUS, PHX, PSC, FAT, and others) where Delta and United openly compete and we fly both of their codeshare flights but they both allow it to exists. It's a fine line though.

 

[~~~^~~~]

the .... agreement that DAL has with Skywest...."no compete" clause- it is a standard business practice.

Copy?

Say again, you are coming in garbled and uninformed. Only joking.

But you are comparing apples and oranges. Non compete clauses are common in employment contracts where an individual is restrained from using proprietary resources to profit upon separation from an employer. This is another issue entirely. (Also, we are not talking about Delta controlling where Skywest can fly under Delta code. We are talking about what they can do under non-DL ticket stock)

Businesses may not collude to exclude other businesses from the market. In the case of airlines, the Department of Transportation has primary jurisdiction over anti trust issues. However, the airframe manufacturers fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission under the recent clearance agreement. Since ALPA's actions are so broad and far reaching, it is very difficult for a manufacturer to sell a 70 to 110 seat aircraft in the United States - despite the fact an eager market exists for these airplanes. This is a problem for aircraft manufacturers and they can seek remedy in the Courts - or the FTC can step in.

Of course unions are designed to be a monopoly - so there is a exclusion of the Sherman Anti Trust Act called Section 6 of the Clayton Act - which exempts unions from being considered a monopoly and busted up under the Sherman Act. But unions are only protected to the extent that they are creating a monopoly (aka - restraint of trade ) over labor, unions can not determine the tools and methods of production.

This thread is about Skywest operating other airplanes (tools and equipment) and ALPA's ability to stop Skywest from acquiring this equipment. I believe that ALPA has reached too far when they write contracts that stop another airline, flying codeshare for yet a fourth party, from purchasing aircraft that are configured in a way ALPA does not prefer.

There are lots of contracts out there. Just because the parties agree, does not make it "legal" or binding. You can agree to buy crack from your dealer, but it might be hard to get the Courts to enforce that contract in the event of breach.

ALPA has decided the regional jet, particularly the 70 to 110 seat versions are a threat to be destroyed and restricted. This is another area where ALPA is on shaky legal ground. A better policy would be to bring pilots together and not work so hard on the apartied system of "haves" and "have nots."

Since you were big on the distinction of domestic code share, I guess that list would only include Delta, ASA, Comair, Chautauqua, Mesa, Northwest, Mesaba, American Eagle, Continental, Jet Express, Gulfstream and ACA, but I am probably forgetting some body. It is a really simple, workable scope that ALPA has - thanks for your support

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

I say again, we are not preventing skywest from buying anything they want, and therefore, the FTC wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Of course, if you disagree, you are welcome to sue. Our lawyers will be free very soon, as soon as they are finished dealing with another frivolous and soon to be unsuccessful lawsuit.