Q? for DL Pilots

[michael707767]

Surplus1, just got off the phone with the MEC. They said CHQ will not be treated any different and they are already talking to the company about this situation.

 

[ACAFACVG]

Hmmmmm.........OK General...If you believe that giving a contract to Midwest Express (or Skyway or whatever they call themselves these days) doesn't help the bottom line one of your competitors (Midwest Airlines) then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to look at. Wonder how you are going to feel when some of YOUR FURLOUGHS (which you claim to care sooo much about) that ACA has hired will be back on the street and be replaced by MIDWEST FURLOUGHS that Skyway may put in the Dojet for less money. You guys are really "restoring the profession" now.

Once again the gang that can't shoot straight, better known as the DL MEC has missed the ball again. They would rather see some of their furloughs back on the street (and be replaced by furloughs from another airline) than to allow "inferior" pilots at a DL Connection carrier an opportunity to fly larger aircraft, even though these aircraft have nothing to do with DL operations. They missed the ball when they decided flying EMB 120s was beneath them and allowed DL to outsource flying to ASA and Comair in 1982, then they screwed up again when they had the chance to bring this flying back on DL property by merging seniorty lists when DL bought ASA and Comair. Wonder what their next brilliant move will be??

It would be just awful if they thought out of the box just a little bit and used their leverage in negotations for pay cuts to get Comair and ASA fully integrated into Delta and force the company to stop the outsourcing of DL flying to outside companies. Wow, that would stop the whipsaw DL is using among Chautauqa, Comair, ASA, and Skyway too. What a novel idea!!! But then they would have to work with "inferior" pilots from Comair and ASA and we just can't have that at Big D can we?

 

[michael707767]

then they screwed up again when they had the chance to bring this flying back on DL property by merging seniorty lists when DL bought ASA and Comair.

First of all let me say I thought we should have merged lists with CMR and ASA. However, explain to me how merging them in would have brought this flying back to the DL property? It would have brought some back sure, but not all. We still would have had the same scope which allowed outsourcing. So the question would have been how much would we have all been willing to give up to get scope giving a merged list all the flying, and would DL management have allowed it no matter what we were willing to give up?

 

[FDJ2]

Surplus and BVT,

The definition of "permitted aircraft" is consistent throughout the DAL PWA and the DAL PWA is being enforced consistently.

If an air carrier flies permitted and other than permitted aircraft then the exemption specified in section 1 does not apply unless that aircraft is not flown for DAL and it is configured with 70 or less seats. Nothing in that conflicts with the definition of a permitted aircraft since we are talking about other than permitted aircraft.

Also, nothing in the DAL PWA is a limitation on ACA. ACA is free to do whatever they want. The limitations are on DAL. DAL can not contract out DL code flying under the section 1D exemption to ACA if ACA chooses to fly Airbus aircraft configured with greater than 70 seats.

If DAL wanted CMR to fly greater than 70 seat aircraft DAL could do that by simply merging the seniority lists, and operating CMR in accordance with section 1.C of the DAL PWA. Note: that does not mean DAL would have to merge the companies, just the pilots lists in order to comply with both the DAL and CMR PWAs. That's exactly how DAL operates Song. Song is an affiliate that operates other than permitted aircraft. If DAL management chooses to operate CMR under the limitations of section 1D, then that is management's decision.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

OK, so we are really tring to understand all this. I've got all the ands, fors, and permitteds down. What the question being asked is, is Skyway able to operate the Dojets under Delta code?

 

[FDJ2]

OK, so we are really tring to understand all this. I've got all the ands, fors, and permitteds down. What the question being asked is, is Skyway able to operate the Dojets under Delta code?

Does Skyway fly jet powered aircraft configured with more than 70 seats? How will the Skyway code share be stuctured, like AE, or like ACA?

 

[FlyComAirJets]

A question answered by two questions, great, I think I see your point though.

Skyway does not operate an aircraft configured with more than 70 seats, but then neither does ACA (yet). However, Skyway's parent company, Midwest Holdings, does currently operate jets well in excess of 70 seats.

It's anyone's guess what kind of code share arrangement there would be. ACA was what we could call a DCI-type code share. American Eagle, as I understand it, is more of a block seat purchase on certain LAX flights. That seems closer to the "reverse code share" that a judge just levied a substantial fine against AMR in favor of APA.

Is that how Delta could circumnavigate your PWA? Just buy some/all the seats on flights that coincidently fly in and out of DAL hubs.

 

[wms]

The important question is, will we get to non-rev on Midwest and get some of those cookies?

 

[FDJ2]

A question answered by two questions, great, I think I see your point though.

Well that's good, because we really don't have all the info yet and that's one of the points I was trying to make.. As far as DAL circumventing our PWA is concerned, if they could do it they would, I guess that's why my copy of the DAL PWA is 382 pages long, because management is always trying to find wiggle room and we're always trying to pin them down. As you pointed out, AMR management just got burned for trying to wiggle too much, I'm sure that's a cautionary tale for DAL mangement, but I doubt they were paying attention.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1, just got off the phone with the MEC. They said CHQ will not be treated any different and they are already talking to the company about this situation.

Thanks michael707767, for your effort to provide a legitimate response.

Perhaps the "final answer" may not be one that I personally would like to hear, but if the "policy" (right or wrong) is applied consistently I can then form a consistent opinion one way or the other.

What bothers me is the "game" of placing the pea under the walnut shell, moving the shells around, and guessing which shell is hiding which pea. As I see it now that's what ALPA is trying to do, obfuscate. In other words, and exercise in deliberate confusion.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."