Mesa and Delta...It's official

[scarlet]

STOP with the lawsuit----**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** it is getting so old----

And Say Again

I think the american people are tired of the CEOs making a shi& load of money and then the company goes up in smoke--THEY ARE SICK of it

MCI, Enro,DL MGT.-LEO-United,

Tell me what ALPA as done that is so so great these past 2 years...ummhhh ummmhhh NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So who cares what is lefted of Alpa.....We can represent ourselves just as good....

 

[scarlet]

Dont worry Delta has just shot them selves in the foot and now ASA and Comair are worth nothing...

DL=Bank...... will happen before long...

 

[scarlet]

MESA what a great company to work for--people there don't even tell people where they work.....

 

[bustinmins]

The reason the "Freedom" certificate is being used by Mesa is that Delta's scope doesn't permit any larger aircraft to be flown by a code share partner. Thus, the CRJ9 flying that Mesa is doing for HP on the Mesa certificate, would have been scoped. That is the reason we are using the F8 certificate.

It is going to be an interesting time flying for DAL wherever they use us. I'd put bets on JFK. Personally, I'll stay on the UAL side in DEN. You guys have fun with our new Mesa guys in town.

BTW - the rampers are almost always outsourced because it is a good deal for both carriers. You guys get more for pushing Mesa and we retain flexibility to move as the code share partner requires.

I don't know what your issues with Mesa are but I can assure you, we'll be happy to see you.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

???

Says who?

I tell people I work for Mesa...of course I have to explain that we are America West Express - United Express - USAirways Express - and now Delta Connection.

Regarding the new contract with Delta...it's great news!

 

[Beechnut]

Farmington puke... and there's nothing we can do about him.

S.

 

[michael707767]

The reason the "Freedom" certificate is being used by Mesa is that Delta's scope doesn't permit any larger aircraft to be flown by a code share partner. Thus, the CRJ9 flying that Mesa is doing for HP on the Mesa certificate, would have been scoped. That is the reason we are using the F8 certificate.

actually, you are wrong. That used to be true, but is not the case with our new contract. Mesa can fly a CRJ900 for AWA, as long as it is not flown for Delta or on a Delta route, there is no problem with our scope.

 

[bustinmins]

To address your Mesa EMB 145 fleet question - I'd bet that the EMB-145's that Mesa is currently using will end up a dead fleet if US Airways goes under. Rumors have been circulating that these EMB-145's may go to Eagle along with our options in exchange for their 700's and their options. Not sure - just speculation.

 

[bustinmins]

actually, you are wrong. That used to be true, but is not the case with our new contract. Mesa can fly a CRJ900 for AWA, as long as it is not flown for Delta or on a Delta route, there is no problem with our scope.

I asked our MEC within minutes of the announcement and that was his response. Interesting. I wonder what JO is up to with the use of F8? Hmmm? The plot thickens.

 

[bustinmins]

Nice

Farmington puke... and there's nothing we can do about him.

S.

Feeling the love...........

 

[N2264J]

But be aware - the alligator is in the tent. Freedom and Chautauqua (Republic) operate 90 seaters.

??? Freedom actually only has one 1900 on it's certificate right now. NO 90 seaters at all. I'm pretty sure CHQ doesn't have any either.

Details grasshopper. Details.

Think: common type rating. Think: maintenance compatability. Think: common inventory. Think: the same training program. Think: the infrastructer already exists elsewhere. Think: economy of scale. Now imagine yourself as an executive of an airline with no money who understands that the 70 to 138 seat gap has to be filled to maintain your very survival.

The new president at Comair is openly talking to pilots about the CL-65-705. That's the CL-65-900 fitted with 70 seats in a two class configuration but could easily be setup with 86 seats. And, according to him, he still wants the E-170 with a type rating that goes to all the way 110 seats. Whipsaw? During our PID petition, the Delta pilots said they couldn't be whipsawed by a CL-65 - only a 737 or larger could meet the criterion for whipsaw.

That train has left the station and the Delta pilots weren't on it. What's more, they don't have the bargaining leverage to stop it. And what's so facinating about this is that with the exception of Dave Griffen, they don't understand the screwing their MEC put to them. All they can manage in the face of this looming disaster is lame jokes about how funny it would be to start the Mainline Defense Coalition and attempt to blame everything on the RJDC and our MEC's poor negotiating skills.

A kid once told me "When I grow up, I want to be a Delta pilot." I said "You can't do both."

 

[say again]

And Say Again

I think the american people are tired of the CEOs making a shi& load of money and then the company goes up in smoke--THEY ARE SICK of it.

What I say has to do with aviation..

I really don't think they care if another company goes up in smoke. Why?? Because there is going to be another company to jump in and take over. As long as they get what they want, the American public is happy. If someone wants to go from A to B, they really don't care who it's on, but rather, who has the cheapest ticket. That's what it comes down to. There's no loyalty anymore.

If United and USAir happen to become extint (pray thay don't), is the American public really going to care? (Some may, most won't). Are they going to even consider what the CEO made? NO

It's the employees who are fed up, and for good reason. We are the ones giving into concessions, crappier work rules, etc. why??

What you say may be true in other fields, but certaintly not aviation.

I think the people are upset because of all the ILLEGAL ways the ceo's are making their $$ and then trying to cover it up.

 

[surplus1]

I do understand exactly what I'm arguing against, you either don't understand your own lawsuit or you are intentionally being deceitfull.

I won't deny that you know what you're arguing against but it's fairly obvious that you didn't pass the bar for you do not understand the language of the litigation.

Be that as it may, I'm curious. What is your take on the hypothetical outline of the "new" Air Wisconsin scope re US Airways? Would you be content if that type of scope appeared in a contract affecting the Delta pilots? Would you feel that efforts to prevent it were unrreasonable and without legal merit?

I just wonder how double your standard really is? Do you have the guts to tell me and the rest of the audience?

If you claim not to have read that part of the RJDC update I'll be happy to accommodate you by publishing it here.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Why do you guys always bring up RJDC....hell talk to Delta MGT. they have support the RJDC--so go talk to them--I know I have a very very good friend at Delta and they would love to see RJDC win....

DAL Management does not "support" the RJDC. Further, the RJDC has been waiting on an attack from management - after all - a unified group of about 7,000 pilots is not want Delta management wants to have to deal with.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Apparently you don't even understand your own lawsuit. Read the suit again. It doesn't say what you are saying above. It refers to all scope that restricts the flying of another airline.

Some folks on the board helped draft the lawsuit, so I think there is a pretty good understanding of what it says amongst the Comair and ASA pilots who participated. The fact that pilots should be able to negotiate with their employer to reach an agreement on their wages and working conditions is nothing new. A contract which excludes the appropriate parties is voidable, since it was illegal in its inception. These are not "new" ideas and not even controversial issues in the law. The RJDC lawsuit should not even be necessary, ALPA should follow these basic rules like a checklist.

This RJDC litigation is not even a question of "if," it is a matter of "when." ALPA knows it and is already starting to hedge their bets and moved money offshore almost immediately after the suit was filed.

Why ALPA continues taking us down the wrong road just leaves me apoleptic. Does mainline bigotry mean so much as to wreck an entire profession to maintain the belief that some pilots are superior to other pilots?

 

[fastbird]

JO, the man who is single handedly f**king the industry scores again!

Bend over boys and girls...I smell another round of concessions in the wind.

 

[FDJ2]

I won't deny that you know what you're arguing against but it's fairly obvious that you didn't pass the bar for you do not understand the language of the litigation.

The language in the lawsuit is quite simple to understand.

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA

to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

What part of that don't you understand?

Let me ask you a few questions, I want to get a feel for where your interpretation of the RJDC and their lawsuit is:

According to the RJDC, does any pilot group own any DL code flying?

According to the RJDC, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code?

According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?

According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?


As for the U situation, that's a whole different story and is not part of the RJDC lawsuit which seeks to abrogate the scope language in the DAL CBA.

 

[FDJ2]

Some folks on the board helped draft the lawsuit, so I think there is a pretty good understanding of what it says amongst the Comair and ASA pilots who participated. The fact that pilots should be able to negotiate with their employer to reach an agreement on their wages and working conditions is nothing new.

Some of the folks who drafted the lawsuit are being somewhat less than straight forward, or they really don't know their own lawsuit.

You do negotiate with your employer, ASA. The rest of your comments are meaningless, since its based on the false premise that somehow DAL is your employer, DAL is not.

 

[737 Pylt]

Details grasshopper. Details.

Think: common type rating. Think: maintenance compatability. Think: common inventory. Think: the same training program. Think: efficiency of scale. Now imagine yourself as an executive of an airline with no money who understands that the 70 to 138 seat gap has to be filled to maintain your very survival.

It's pretty funny that you of all people writes think. You need a brain to think man!

The new president at Comair is openly talking to pilots about the CL-65-705. That's the CL-65-900 fitted with 70 seats in a two class configuration but could easily be setup with 86 seats. And, according to him, he still wants the E-170 with a type rating that goes to all the way 110 seats. Whipsaw? During our PID petition, the Delta pilots said they couldn't be whipsawed by a CL-65 - only a 737 or larger could meet the criterion for whipsaw.

And because management said it, it must be true. You are truly an idiot!

That train has left the station and the Delta pilots weren't on it. What's more, they don't have the bargaining leverage to stop it. And what's so facinating about this is that with the exception of Dave Griffen, they don't understand the screwing their MEC put to them. All they can manage in the face of this looming disaster is lame jokes about how funny it would be to start the Mainline Defense Coalition and attempt to blame everything on the RJDC and our MEC's poor negotiating skills.

What I think is funny is how you morons can't stop from being scoped
yourself. Isn't it ironic??

A kid once told me "When I grow up, I want to be a Delta pilot." I said "You can't do both."

That's almost as funny as the Comar pilot I saw in the supermarket (in uniform)that was telling some lady he was a "pilot for Delta."
737
At least take the hat off loser!

 

[737 Pylt]

Oh brother!

The language in the lawsuit is quite simple to understand.

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA

to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

What part of that don't you understand?

(Sigh!) What part don't you understand. All flying under the DAL code is subject to the DAL pilots' PWA. Simply put!

Let me ask you a few questions, I want to get a feel for where your interpretation of the RJDC and their lawsuit is:

According to the RJDC, does any pilot group own any DL code flying?

OK, here we go again, "All flying under the DAL code is subject to the DAL pilots' PWA."

737