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?