Mesa and Delta...It's official

[bandit317]

Just heard that MAG is thinking about purchasing ASA or Comair if Delta sells them off. Would these guys be stapled to the bottom of the seniority list? Anybody else heard this?

 

[jetflyer]

MAG is Mesa Air Group right???

Where do people keep getting this rumor from?? What are people's sources??

This Mesa rumor has popped up several times on different threads, but no one ever says more than, "I just heard Mesa is going to buy ASA/Comair".

Where did you hear it!??

Jet

 

[bandit317]

Heard it as a rumor in crew rooms. You know how rumors go.

 

[jetflyer]

Wouldn't Mesa buying Comair be funny though?

The least respected regional buying one of the most respected.

Such IRONY.

God help Comair and its employees if this turns out to be true one day.

I don't think Freddie Buttrell would be happy having his company sold right out from under him after he's been with Comair for 3-4 months.

Maybe Fred Buttrell is Grinstein's replacement?

Jet

 

[FDJ2]

I don't think Freddie Buttrell would be happy having his company sold right out from under him after he's been with Comair for 3-4 months.

That depends on how much $$$ Fred gets from the deal. I wouldn't worry too much about Fred, I'm sure he'll do just fine.

 

[General Lee]

That depends on how much $$$ Fred gets from the deal. I wouldn't worry too much about Fred, I'm sure he'll do just fine.

This is great for Fred. He now has "President of an Airline" as a title he can put on his resume. That will get him places, it will. Next stop for him, President of Primarus. (???)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Paart 1 of 2

Surplus, thanks for sharing your interpretation on the litigation and the law.

You are welcome, sir. WARNING: This will be another LONG one, but only 2 Parts this time.

I take it that you believe that CMR or any other ALPA carrier should be allowed to fly unlimited DL code on the 777 if it wins an RFP for that flying, so long as that 777 is on their certificate.[/quote]

NO, I do NOT believe that at all. As I see it, that could not happen unless the Delta pilots choose to allow it. Why you would do so escapes me completely. You are still misunderstanding what I've tried to say. I apologize for being unable to articulate it in terms you can understand. I'll try again.



A. Comair does not now operate any 777's. Delta Air Lines does oprerate the 777 on your certificate. Nothing in the litigation can force you to give up any legal right that you have now, including the right to prevent your company from subcontracting the operation of any equipment that you fly. All the litigation can do, if we win, is remove the parts of your contract that were negotiated in violation of the law and are therefore invalid.

• Many of you guys at Delta seem to think this litigation is designed to take something from Delta pilots. It is NOT. Its purpose is to prevent ALPA from taking from us in the future and to restore that which has already been taken inappropriately. This is an action against the ALPA. It is NOT an action against Delta pilots. We at Comair do not seek that which is rightfully yours. We seek to prevent you from taking what is rightfully ours, which, through ALPA, you have already done.
• As a matter of history, the CMR MEC foresaw the probability of this dispute as being inevitable, long before Delta purchased Comair. The the Comair MEC, olive branch in hand, gave the Delta MEC and the ALPA innumerable opportunities to avoid this dispute. Both ALPA and the DMEC rejected those overtures, and even went so far as to threaten us for having the gaul to suggest them.
• After Delta purchased Comair, we offered yet another opportunity, both to the ALPA and the DMEC, to resolve the dispute. The DMEC and ALPA both rejected that offer with vehemence and accused us of trying to steal your seniority. We never had such intent then and we do not now.

• WE did not choose to remain separate from you. YOU made the choice to remain separate from us. You apparently thought that it would be a simple matter for you to conrol our lives and make us subservient to your whims. You were mistaken. The consequences have been unfavorable to you but that is not our fault, it is your fault. You wanted us to be separate and we are. That does not mean that we will abdicate our rights to your wishes. On the contrary, it means we will defend our rights to the extent legally possible, both now and in the future. However, in so doing we will NOT attempt to infringe upon your rights in any way. You simply do not have the rights you presume. Again, the presumption is your responsibility not ours. When you get over the presumptions things will come back to reality and we'll get along with each other.

B. The present merger clause in your current PWA would, as I interpret it, require DAL to merge with CMR, if Comair acquires any aircraft with 71 seats or more. Therefore, unless you subsequently give up that clause, a merger would ensue if CMR began to operate that aircraft, regardless of what "code" it is operated under. That is because Comair is owned by Delta. That provides some very good protection for you, even though you find the thought of a merger with the likes of us distasteful.

• If CMR was NOT owned by DAL, you could still prevent CMR from operating that aircraft on behalf of DAL, but you could not prevent CMR from operating the aircraft in its own right or for someone other than Delta.
• As an example, your PWA currently prevents Comair from operating any aircraft with more than 70-seats for Delta. It also prevents Comair from operating such an aircraft for itself or for someone other than Delta. That same PWA prevents CHQ from operating such an aircraft for Delta but it does NOT prevent CHQ from operating it for itself or for (lets say UAL).
• Since CMR had never operated or ordered such an aircraft when your PWA was negotiated and signed, the prohibition against operating it for Delta does NOT violate the rights of Comair pilots. However, the prohibition with respect to CMR operating such and aircraft for itself or on behalf of (lets say UAL) does violate the rights of Comair pilots.
• Additionally, the limitation on how many 70-seat aircraft Comair may operate, whether for Delta or anyone else, violates the rights of Comair pilots, as do all of the other artificial restraints that your most recent PWA attempt to impose. Why is that? Because we had those rights, without limitation, until ALPA attempted to remove them with your "new and improved" Scope clause. You cannot take from us that which we already have. You are trying.
  • In your current PWA, ALPA further discriminates against CMR and ASA (both ALPA carriers) but does not discriminate against CHQ or SKYW (one and IBT carrier and the other a non-union carrier). Doesn't that strike you as somewhat absurd? I have to ask, what on earth is ALPA thinking when it does something like that?
• As it now stands, you are protected against CMR or ASA operating the 90-seater and/or the 777. We are not attempting to change that with this litigation. Market forces will do it for us. Personally, I think you will eventually have to give up the 90-100 seaters (which you do not operate anyway) but that's just my opinion. If you guys want to walk out to prevent us from flying the EMB-190 for Delta you are free to do so, but I doubt you will. The point is: nothing in the litigation will force you to do that if you don't want to, and nothing in the litigation is designed to force you to do that.
• If Delta Air Lines finds its way around your current scope clause or can get you to relinquish it, I see no reason why we should not bid for that equipment. You are not operating it now and neither are we. Therefore, we are free to bid for it and so are you. If and when you get that airplane on your operating certificate, Comair pilots will not be attempting to bid for it and take it from you. We will not do that with any airplane that you operate and, as we see it, any attempt by ALPA to negotiate that on our behalf would violate its DFR to the Delta pilots.

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

C. There is nothing to prevent you from negotiating a provision in your PWA with Delta, that would preclude DAL from subcontracting a 777 to CMR or to anyone else. All you have to do is get it done BEFORE that other airline already has a contract with DAL to do so. In fact you have already done this and we are not challenging it.



It is not the prohibition against subcontracting, in your contract, that causes ALPA to violate its DFR to other ALPA carriers. It is the attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game. Once you have given away an item, you can't take it back. You don't have to give it away if you don't want to, that's up to you. There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent you from protecting your own job security, you just can't do that by removing our job security. That is why you need good Scope and should have it.



It is only when your Scope attempts to take or prevent my work after the fact that you go astray. In short, you can prevent Comair or anyone else from operating aircraft of any type for DAL, so long as you do so BEFORE THE FACT and can get Delta to agree with you. You cannot prevent CMR from operating any aircraft as Comair or from operating any aircraft for a carrier other than Delta Air Lines, whether or not Delta agrees with you. Delta Air Lines, Inc. can prevent that but Delta pilots cannot. Not as long as both of us are members of the ALPA.



The Comair PWA has some gaping holes in Section 1, (especially 1.B.2., and the lack of fragmentation protection) but subcontracting or acquisition of another airline are not among them. If you look at the CMR PWA, Section 1.C. and Section 1. D., you will find that it prohibits subcontracting except for aircraft smaller than 20 seats, which we don't care about. It does NOT prevent CMR from acquiring another airline or from operating it as a separate entity. However, in that event it requires CMR to integrate the seniority lists and to provide a system that allows pilots to move between the different corporate entites freely. The company gets flexibility and we get protection at the same time.



D. You can prevent Delta from subcontracting for any aircraft that you have on your operating certificate, without limitation. Again, you must do so BEFORE it happens, not after it is already a done deal.



Even if it IS already a done-deal, you can take it back provided the carrier that has the deal is NOT represented by the Air Line Pilots Association. Why the difference? Because ALPA is the bargaining agent for BOTH parties in one example and is only the bargaining agent for you in the second example.



ALPA has no obligation to represent the interests of pilots that do NOT belong to ALPA and is NOT their agent. Therefore, if ALPA can get DAL to terminate its subcontracting with CHQ or SKYW, it is free to do so. (Good luck).



I don't want ALPA to terminate CHQ or SKYW contracts because they are not subcontracting with my airline. My scope clause prevents that and it was written BEFORE anything like that happened.



Your Scope clause did not prevent it before it happened with Delta and both CHQ and SKYW would be injured if you changed it now. However, because they are not represented by the ALPA, there is nothing to prevent ALPA/you from injuring them.



If ALPA can get DAL to cancel its code share with Air France or KAL or both, those companies might have an action against Delta, but the Air France pilots or the Korean pilots would have NO cause for action against ALPA. ALPA does not represent their interests.



If ALPA can get DAL to cancel its code share with NWA and CAL, that's a different ball game. IF it is done in a way that injures the interests of the NWA and CAL pilots, ALPA would first have to obtain their consent. If they don't give that consent and you do it anyway, and they can prove they have been harmed by it, they would have cause for an action against the ALPA, since ALPA represents their interests equally with yours.



The key to most of this seems to be your failure to accept the fact that you are not your own bargaining agent. The Delta MEC is NOT a legal entity. It is a unit of ALPA and can do nothing that ALPA does not endorse. That is why no ALPA contract is valid without the signature of the ALPA President. It is also why the ALPA is liable for the errors of the DMEC.



ALPA has established administrative procedures that require the review of ALPA contracts, for the purpose of determining that they comply with the law and do not violate ALPA's duty of fair representation by harming other ALPA members. The "reviewers" are supposed to make recommendations to the President as to whether he can or cannot sign that contract. It appears that this process is followed carefully when the potential conflict is between two major airline contracts or two regional airline contract. But, it apparently is not followed at all if the potential conflict is between a major airline group and a regional airline group. A rather clear example that ALPA in fact follows a practice of discriminating in favor or major airline pilot groups, at the expense of regional airline pilot groups, contrary to its own administrative procedures.

Do you think this will increase RFPs and the whipsaw or decrease it?

The answer to that is obvious. It can't happen because your original premise is incorrect. I've given you my views as to why I think this way.

 

[General Lee]

Cheese and Rice Surplus1 that was long.......Remember, Comair and ASA were bought to give lift to Mama Delta. CHQ, SKYWEST, and MESA do the same. You all are here to provide lift, not replace mainline. Try not to forget that please.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Cheese and Rice Surplus1 that was long.......Remember, Comair and ASA were bought to give lift to Mama Delta. CHQ, SKYWEST, and MESA do the same. You all are here to provide lift, not replace mainline. Try not to forget that please.

Bye Bye--General Lee

I agree with that General. Now YOU try to remember that your role in life is not to replace us. Don't confuse yourself with "Mama Delta" (one of your prime tendencies), you're just a Delta pilot, not the CEO.

That seems to be the whole problem with folks like you. You think you own the airline. I got news for ya, you don't. You just work there. Capiche?

 

[surplus1]

Surplus thanks for helping me understand what RJDC is all about.UBA757

Thank you. If I've been helpful to you I'm greatful for the opportunity. Keep in mind that the opinions I have expressed are no more than my own. I invite you to seek input from other sources. I claim no monopoly on the "right" answers.

The only thing I ask is that you look at the history of the facts with objectivity and then make your own decision once you are fully informed. I hope you will see the legitimacy of the effort by the RJDC and the reason for the litigation Our little airline does have a history that is worth knowing. So does the dispute that has given rise to this lawsuit.

FDJ2 is a smart fellow. Regretably, he doesn't seem willing to read past his own preconceptions. He didn't really want answers, he wanted an opportunity to cherry pick the reply, tailor parts of it to his preconceptions and procliam "see, I told you so."

Like much of ALPA's leadership, he doesn't listen very well. He doesn't talk with you, he talks to you or past you. Productive dialogue seldom takes place in such and environment. "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

Over the years I've become quite familiar with the MO of the ALPA leadership and that part of the constituency that echoes FDJ2 and the General. They don't really want answers or dialogue, they just want their way and fully embrace the concept that the end justifies the means, provided of course that the end is in their favor.

I don't think that way. I do not want any Comair pilot to take from any Delta pilot, or any pilot from any airline. However, I will not sit idly by and permit the labor union that I pay to represent my interests to rape my pilot group or any other due to a caste system that is the product of its own creation. I happen to think that is both morally and legally wrong, and will fight to prove it in a proper court of law.

Unity of purpose cannot be achieved by policies that permit the powerful majority to trample on the rights of the less powerful minority. We also cannot acheive it by subservience one to another.

There is nothing wrong with ALPA as an institution. There is everything wrong with its current administration and the policies of apartheid they choose to adopt and promote. When the leadership of my union responds to my legitimate concerns by telling me "sometimes you have to eat a sh_t sandwich", I lose all respect for them. Nope, I don't have to eat such a sandwich and neither does any Comair pilot.

Regards, and welcome to Comair, "The Best Little Airline in America."

 

[PCL_128]

Surplus, it isn't that we don't listen to you. I personally have read every single word you've posted on this thread. I simply don't agree with your opinions. It doesn't mean that I don't listen to your opinions, I just don't agree. Don't assume that just because someone comes to different conclusions than you that they are not listening.

 

[scarlet]

I don't even read that dam@ RJDC thing anymore---it is a beaten horse and it is all you guys OPINION................

AND THE COURTS dont CARE(I know it is hard to believe because you all know everything about the lawsuit and aviation) WHAT your OPINIONS ARE so

SHUT UP about RJDC............THat is from everyone else in the post too,, they are tired of hearing it....

GO tell DELTA(Moma) to come up with a business plan--they already slapped the DL pilots in the face once,,,paycut and then cut fares...that was smart!!!!

 

[surplus1]

Surplus, it isn't that we don't listen to you. I personally have read every single word you've posted on this thread. I simply don't agree with your opinions. It doesn't mean that I don't listen to your opinions, I just don't agree. Don't assume that just because someone comes to different conclusions than you that they are not listening.

That's fair enough PCL_128, you have every right to disagree if you wish and I respect that right. I can only hope that the courts will agree with my point of view and not with yours.

In the final analysis that is why we have courts of law, because people disagree.

 

[surplus1]

I don't even read that dam@ RJDC thing anymore---it is a beaten horse and it is all you guys OPINION................

AND THE COURTS dont CARE(I know it is hard to believe because you all know everything about the lawsuit and aviation) WHAT your OPINIONS ARE so

SHUT UP about RJDC............THat is from everyone else in the post too,, they are tired of hearing it....

GO tell DELTA(Moma) to come up with a business plan--they already slapped the DL pilots in the face once,,,paycut and then cut fares...that was smart!!!!

Scarlet,

I'm going to make some assumptions: 1) You own a computer or you have access to one; 2) You know how to find this forum; 3) You knew how to find this thread; 3) You are aware of its content and subject matter, 4) You know how to operate your mouse.

Recommendation: The next time you come to flightinfo.com, avoid selecting this thread. That way you will never have to read anything in it that you do not want to. Meanwhile, permit those who wish to beat the horse as often as they choose.

Enjoy your weekend.

 

[General Lee]

I agree with that General. Now YOU try to remember that your role in life is not to replace us. Don't confuse yourself with "Mama Delta" (one of your prime tendencies), you're just a Delta pilot, not the CEO.

That seems to be the whole problem with folks like you. You think you own the airline. I got news for ya, you don't. You just work there. Capiche?

Yo Comprendo. But, our VP of flight Ops (and the Czar of DCI) stated that DCI would NOT get 90 or 100 seaters (during that infamous meeting 3 months ago), and he is incharge. If we ever decided to buy that size aircraft, I am sure they would offer it to Dalpa first to negotiate, and given the latest round of cuts and cutbacks, I think Dalpa would take it, even at lower rates. Look at Jetblue and the E190---a 12 year Capt will make $89 an hour. That is what YOU AND I ARE COMPETING WITH THESE DAYS----rates from a new airline with NO UNION. THAT IS OUR NEW COMPETITION, AND IT WILL AFFECT OUR RATES---YOURS AND MINE. QUIT BLAMING ALPA AND LOOK AROUND AND SEE WHAT REALLY IS AFFECTING OUR PAY. Capiche? A 12 year Captain flying a 100 seat aircraft shouldn't be paid $89 an hour.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

General : You provide lift for Delta, I provide lift for Delta. There are guys on the street who used to provide lift for Delta. The difference is an arbitrary determination by our union.

Jet Blue pilots did the same thing your MEC has done. Get over it. The current Jet Blue guys negotiated cheap rates on airplanes they would not have to fly. Your MEC sent entire fleet types out to bid on code share. It seems like everyone is willing to give away flying on airplanes they don't think they will ever have to fly. At least Jet Blue did not let the codeshare cat out of the bag like your MEC did.

I'm starting to look forward to the day when Delta ceases operations. Delta has become the crappy underside of this industry thanks to employees that are are treated like the enemy by both management and other employee groups.

~~~^~~~

 

[surplus1]

General,

You have a provision in your PWA that prevents us from operating a 90-seat airplane for Delta. Therfore, we can't operate it unless you give up that part of your contract. I have no problem whatever with that. We aren't trying to make you give that up.

You are correct, we can't compete with JetBlue on the pay rates. You can't either. On top of that your present infrastructure helps to make you less competitive. That is not your fault.

Let us not forget however, it was ALPA that first low-balled the EMB170 product, not JB. It was not regional pilots that did it, it was mainline pilots at USAirways. Can you name anyone that has lower rates for that equipment than MDA? Remember, the matched the Eagle contract, but they gave up 100% of their longevity, thus putting them all at 1st year pay. You can bet that the JBlue decision was based on that. As far as I know, there are no 1st yr capt's flying 70-seat jets at any regional carrier.

If Delta pilots want to give up their longevity to get a 90-seat airplane, go for it. The $89 JB pay that you quote for the EMB-190 applies to a 12 yr. Capt. Don't forget that JB hasn't even existed for 6 years so there will be no one at that pay rate. Virtually all of their EMB-190 capts can be expected to be pretty close to 1st year pay, which is $71 at present. That's not a pretty picture. Not for you, not for us, not for anyone.

As far as I know, only Mesa has lower pay for a 12 yr Capt in the CRJ-900 = $82. Also courtesy of ALPA. I do not envy your efforts.

 

[PCL_128]

The current Jet Blue guys negotiated cheap rates on airplanes they would not have to fly.

Just to clarify, the Jet Blue pilots did not "negotiate" anything on the new aircraft. Management imposed those crappy rates on the pilots. The pilots at Jet Blue are non-union and as such have no say whatsoever in the new rates.

 

[General Lee]

General : You provide lift for Delta, I provide lift for Delta. There are guys on the street who used to provide lift for Delta. The difference is an arbitrary determination by our union.

Jet Blue pilots did the same thing your MEC has done. Get over it. The current Jet Blue guys negotiated cheap rates on airplanes they would not have to fly. Your MEC sent entire fleet types out to bid on code share. It seems like everyone is willing to give away flying on airplanes they don't think they will ever have to fly. At least Jet Blue did not let the codeshare cat out of the bag like your MEC did.

I'm starting to look forward to the day when Delta ceases operations. Delta has become the crappy underside of this industry thanks to employees that are are treated like the enemy by both management and other employee groups.

~~~^~~~

Delta may cease to exist, after a merger with NW or CAL. What will happen to ASA and Comair? Answer: Aeromexico Express based in Tampico. Or, you might get absorbed by Mesa. Take a pick. And, which other employees at DL treat us bad? We all know at mainline and Song that we are just along for the ride. I personally think some of our older stews should hang it up, but I don't tell them that! I still want free first class food.

Jetblue guys negotiated what? Are you sure about that?



Bye Bye--General Lee