More 170's for UALX

[lowecur]

Someone said that getting an OC would be a piece of cake for Virgin USA.

July 07, 2004 07:52 PM US Eastern Timezone

Republic Airways Announces Revised Schedule for Flying 70 Seat Aircraft

INDIANAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 7, 2004--Republic Airways Holdings (Nasdaq:RJET) announced today that it has agreed with United Air Lines Inc., one of its code-share partners, on a revised schedule for Republic to begin operating ERJ-170 aircraft for United. Under the terms of the recently concluded agreement, Republic expects to commence flying the first of a planned fleet of up to 23 ERJ-170s for United in October 2004. The 23 70-seat aircraft that Republic expects to operate is an increase from the 16 ERJ-170 aircraft originally contemplated to be operated for United. Of the 23 aircraft, 3 are options that Republic can place into service with United provided the aircraft can be delivered by June 30, 2005.

The increase in the number of ERJ-170s will not result in an increase in the number of aircraft being flown for United. Bryan K. Bedford, Republic's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, commented: "We are changing the mix of aircraft that we operate for United from 50 to 70 seat aircraft." Assuming Republic exercises the 3 ERJ-170 options, the increase in 70 seat aircraft will offset exactly a planned reduction of the ERJ-145 fleet from 16 to 9 aircraft.

Bedford continued, "We originally planned to begin flying these ERJ-170 aircraft for United as early as August through Republic Airline, our new operating subsidiary. This timetable was based on Republic Airline receiving its certification on a timely basis. The airline certification process, however, is lengthy and unpredictable and it is taking longer than anticipated. Therefore, to meet the needs of United as quickly as possible, we've decided to operate these aircraft initially through Chautauqua Airlines and we expect Chautauqua to receive the required aircraft certification in October." Mr. Bedford added that Republic is pressing ahead with the certification process for Republic Airline and, when certificated, the ERJ-170s will be operated through this subsidiary.

In addition to the fleet changes identified above, United has also agreed to postpone from September until November 20, 2004 its ability to terminate the code-share agreement with Republic Airline, if Republic Airline or Chautauqua is unable to obtain certification to operate the ERJ-170s. Greg Taylor, Senior Vice President - Planning of United commented: "United is very pleased to have Republic Airways be a part of the United Express program and looks forward to seeing the first ERJ-170 take off for us in October."

Robert "Hal" Cooper, Republic's Executive Vice President and CFO, commented: "Although we will fly ERJ-170s for United a little later than anticipated, we believe that the short delay will have no material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. In fact, changing the mix of aircraft from 50 to 70 seats should result in a win - win situation for both Republic and United."

 

[FlyingDawg]

Does any of Chautauqua codeshares prevent them from operating 70 seaters?

If not why not operate the 70's with Chautauqua instead of Republic?

 

[Be200pilot]

yeah, delta does

 

[J32driver]

yeah, delta does

Then why can ASA/Comair operate them?

 

[Caveman]

DALPA has a scope limit that only permits a maximum of 57 70 seat a/c between all the DCI carriers. With pending deliveries that maximum has been met. Therefore, in order for CHQ to fly these 170's something somewhere will have to give.

 

[F70pilot]

The 170 was certified to 70+ seats which may be above the limit for a Delta express carrier. US Airways 170s are configured to 72 seats.

 

[Bayoupilot]

DALPA has a scope limit that only permits a maximum of 57 70 seat a/c between all the DCI carriers. With pending deliveries that maximum has been met. Therefore, in order for CHQ to fly these 170's something somewhere will have to give.

Chautauqua will not be flying the 170s. Those will be flown by Republic, a separate carrier.

 

[vc10]

Chautauqua will not be flying the 170s. Those will be flown by Republic, a separate carrier.

Which shares its pilot seniority list with CHQ---so from the point of view of a pilot, they may as well be one and the same.

 

[Bayoupilot]

Which shares its pilot seniority list with CHQ---so from the point of view of a pilot, they may as well be one and the same.

But we're not talking about a pilot's POV here.

 

[bvt1151]

What about Skywest's 70-seaters? With Comair and ASA's 70's, they already exceed the 57 limit. What's DALPA saying about that, and how is that different from CHQ's request?

Is this turning out to be a scope limit on aircraft only if it hurts ASA or Comair?

And it is a pilot's POV, since it is a scope clause created by a pilot's union.

 

[jobear]

DALPA has a scope limit that only permits a maximum of 57 70 seat a/c between all the DCI carriers.

Does that 57 include the A/C that Skywest flies also?

How can DAL fire ACA and keep a codeshare with Skywest when they fly 70 seaters for UAL isn't it all on the same certificate/operation.

Does Republic operate on a seperate certificate? Then how can the Pilots be on the same senority list?

Just wondering not trolling.
Jobear

 

[General Lee]

Skywest and Chataqua can fly as many 70 seaters as they want---but the only ones currently flying for Delta are the 57 proposed--and those will be flown by ASA/Comair. Sure, there may be some back room deal made by Dalpa and managment that would allow Chataqua to fly some for Delta---but I bet there would be a J4J deal attached--and the furloughs would return as captains on them. Just a guess..... I don't think Delta would mind that at all...


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Are you serious?

Let's see if I have this straight; there could be "some back room deal made by Dalpa and managment that would allow Chataqua to fly some for Delta---but I bet there would be a J4J deal attached--and the furloughs would return as captains on them." There is an additional entity who needs to be a signature party here, the Air Line Pilots Association so they must be acutely aware of such a deal.

The Chautauqua pilots, on the other hand, are represented by the Teamsters.

The mythical 58th RJ would not be at ASA or Comair CRJ700 at industry-leading pay rates but rather an E-170 operated by Chautauqua dba Republic Airways largely crewed by Delta pilots with some form of super seniority at industry-trailing payrates.

Wow, talk about the mother of all DFR cases.

 

[surplus1]

Does that 57 include the A/C that Skywest flies also?

It would inlclude any 70 seat jet flown by SKYW under the Delta code. It would not include any flown for United or others.

How can DAL fire ACA and keep a codeshare with Skywest when they fly 70 seaters for UAL isn't it all on the same certificate/operation.

The ACA situation is different from Skywest. ACA (Independence) is operating or will operate jets "configured" with more than 70-seats. That violates Delta's scope clause. The "Certificate" on which the aircraft is placed has nothing to do with it.

Does Republic operate on a seperate certificate? Then how can the Pilots be on the same senority list?

For this purpose, which certificate they operate under does not matter. CHQ or REP can operate as many 70-seat jets as they chose as long as they are not operated for Delta.

The following is the applicable language from Section 1.D.2. of the Delta PWA:

1 D.2. If a domestic air carrier operates both permitted aircraft types and aircraft other than permitted aircraft types, the exemption for that domestic air carrier provided by Section 1 D. 1. will not apply unless:

a. the flying on aircraft other than permitted aircraft types is not performed for the Company within the meaning of Section 1 C., and
​

b. there is no reduction in the level of the Company​

’s then existing system scheduled aircraft block hours of flying as the result of the performance of such flying on other than a permitted aircraft type, and
​

c. the aircraft other than a permitted aircraft type, is either a jet aircraft configured with 70 or fewer passenger seats or a propeller driven aircraft configured with 72 or fewer passenger seats, and is operated on its own behalf or pursuant to agreement with an air carrier(s) other than the Company or an affiliate.​

​

​

Notice that the conjunction "and" is used to link a., b., and c., which means that all three conditions must be met.​

​

Therefore as long as Chautauqua configures the EMB-170 with no more than 70 passenger seats, it may operate as many as it wants to for itself, for United, for USAirways or anyone else, without violating the Delta PWA.​

​

The Delta PWA defines Comair and ASA as Affiliates (in addition to their being "domestic air carriers"), which is not the same as the relationship with Chautauqua or SKYW. Therefore, Section 1.D.3. contains almost, but not quite, the same provison as above with respect to CMR and ASA. It reads as follows:​

​

1 D.3. Section 1 C. will not apply to flying performed by any affiliate on permitted aircraft types.

​

The definition of "permitted aircraft type" in the Delta PWA makes no reference to "configuration" but only references "certification". Because of this difference the restrictions applied to Comair and ASA are actually more restrictive than those applied to Chautauqua or SKYW. The EMB-170 is "certificated" for 76 seats. Therefore, Comair or ASA would NOT be able to operate this type for themselves or for anyone else in that Section 1 D.3. (above) does not include the term "configuration", which appears in Section 1 D.2.c. While the difference is very subtle it is nevertheless intentional. If it were not, there would be no need for the separate Section 1 D.3.​

​

I hope that clears it up.​

 

[Weasel Keeper]

Wondering...just out of curiosity if Shuttle America's cert would work for 70 seaters....(Wexford parents...) if we got rid of the Saabs...


Heck, I dunno, rumors rule around here.

Just a happy S/A Shroom......

 

[TWAER]

Also, guess who owns a bunch of RJET stock? It would be in Delta's best interest to help CHQ keep the United deal. If CHQ were to lose it, RJET stock would drop and Delta would lose even more money.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Surplus :

Thanks for your replies and research.

I thought the E170 was over the weight limits for a permitted aircraft type.

~~~^~~~

 

[Broke in CVG]

Delta doesn't own any RJET stock... they just have warrants (rights to purchase).

 

[rvsm410]

From a dispatchers pay side of the story.

The CHQ dispatchers will bid to work only under the Republic certificate to dispatch only the 170's, the pay however will be the same as if working for the CHQ side of the room....Wonder what the pilot pay will be? the same as any other aircraft at CHQ???? $12.19 an hour to start...... for dispatch, moves up in one year to almost $13.00 and hour!

Where is the bottom going to stop???? They have a contract good till 2007 if I recall the web site correctly....todays press release is new to me however, so I really don't know how this will affect the scope with DAL noted above...interesting to say the least...

 

[TWAER]

Delta doesn't own any RJET stock... they just have warrants (rights to purchase).

UMMMMMMMM check again, they OWN yes I said OWN a bunch........I believe about 18% or so.......

 

[surplus1]

Surplus :

Thanks for your replies and research.

I thought the E170 was over the weight limits for a permitted aircraft type.

~~~^~~~

Fins,

Your point about the weight limit is well made. The weight restriction applicaple to the 57 seventy seat aircraft approved for operation by DCI carriers is 85,000 lbs. As I'm sure you know the EMB170(ER) has a max TO weight of 82,012 lbs. It could therefore be operated as one of the 57.

The weight limit for the other "permitted" jets is 65,000 lbs, which it obviously exceeds by a wide margin.

Since those aircraft operated for "other carriers" are exempt from Section 1 C. of the Delta PWA, provided they are "configured" with 70-seats or less, and no weight limit is mentioned in Section 1 D. 2., it appears that the EMB 170 is OK. This however is subject to interpretation.

It could be argued that since the operation (of the EMB-170) is predicated on its being a "permitted aircraft type" in the first instance, and since only 57 permitted types with 70-seats and GTOW of 85K are authorized, the limitation of 65K should apply, not withstanding the 70-seat configuration in 1.D.2.c..

This could result in the Company interpreting it to allow operation of the EMB-170 for carriers other than Delta, and the Delta pilots interpreting it to mean that the 85,000 lb. limit applies only to the 57 seventy seat aircraft operated by DCI and therefore it violates the contract. There is definitely a potential conflict between Section 1 B and Section 1 D.2. of the Delta PWA.

As long as the Delta pilots don't protest CHQ or REP operating this EMB-170 for United, everything will be OK. If they do, the Company would likely disagree and we would wind up with a grievance and arbitration. Given the contract language, this is a gray area. It would be interesting to see how an arbitrator might rule.

If the Company were to lose the arbitration, Chatauqua would be prevented from operating the EMB-170 for United or anyone else. That would then raise the issue of whether Republic, operating under a different Operating Certificate (which it does not yet have), and not being a DCI carrier could bypass the Scope language of the Delta PWA.

The Delta PWA appears to be silent (unless I missed it) on the issue of Operating Certificates and I think the Company would have a strong arguement in its favor. Again, except for Mesa, this is untested.

A similar provision in the USAirways CBA attempted to prevent Mesa from operating the CRJ-900 for AWA. That resulted in Mesa creating Freedom as a non-union subsidiary designed to bypass the AAA Scope clause, which ALPA was not successful in preventing. The net result of that ALPA created debacle was the infamous Mesa CBA, which set a new standard for inferior contracts and negatively affected many other negotiations. Republic was created with apparently the same intent, and it too ultimately forced the CHQ pilots to accept a lesser contract to protect their seniority and preclude the inevitable alter ego whipsaw. It also forced them to reverse their anti-J4J vote and accept ALPA's abrogation of their seniority by USAirways pilots.

It is my opinion that ALPA knows there's a flaw in the Delta PWA scope clause that could result in ALPA's being defeated if this was to be challenged by the Delta pilots and go to arbitration. Therefore they have not raised a challenge at SKYW and they will not raise one at CHQ/REP. It appears that the Delta pilots have figured out that when you're up to you chin in horse sh*t, you shouldn't make waves.

When this language was written I doubt the ALPA lawyers were aware of the coming Embraer product and the Delta pilots were so focused on stopping the Canadair 70-seater at CMR and ASA that they didn't catch it either. [Remember that back then UAL wasn't bankrupt and the United pilots were also married to restrictive Scope clauses that would not have allowed 70-seat jets at a UALX carrier; probably seen as an impregnable shield of protection.] I'm sure they would deny that if asked, but it is nevertheless one more leak in the Scope dike that permits Company lawyers to drive semi-trucks through the holes. More proof that misdirected predatory Scope doesn't work and doesn't solve the problems.

Here's the language from the Delta PWA, Section 1 B.

(Section 1 B.) “Permitted aircraft type” means:

a. a propeller-driven aircraft configured with 70 or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 70,000 or fewer pounds, and​

b. a jet aircraft certificated for operation in the United States for 50 or fewer passenger seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 65,000 or fewer pounds, and​

c. one of up to 57 jet aircraft certificated for operation in the United States for 70 or fewer passenger seats and a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 85,000 or fewer pounds.​

​

 

[dav8or]

What this says to me is the beginning of the end for new 145's. Mgt knows that the 170/190 offer an even better return in terms of labor/revenue. Our current contract is only 10% more for flying the 170 vs 145, the fo pay is the same and you add one more fa but you get almost 40% more seats. The 190 is an even better deal, 5% more pay (170) for the CA and the other labor costs stay the same as the 170 but they get 80% more seats than the 145 and 20% more seats than the 170. With the trouble all of our code shares are in I'm sure they will find a way around any scope to get us flying these planes.