Q? for DL Pilots

[surplus1]

Recently DAL announced that it was canceling its DCI contract with ACA because ACA (Independence) would be operating aircraft (not under the DL code) with more than 70 seats, which violates a part of the Delta PWA. [Note: The aircraft operated by ACA for DCI seat less than 50.]

According to Embraer, the EMB-170 has a certificated seating capacity of 78. That seating capacity exceeds the limit of the Delta PWA, Section 1.D.2.c.

According to the Delta PWA, the EMB-170 does not qualify as a "permitted aircraft type" as defined in Section 1.A.17.b. of the contract.

Additionally, it appears that operation of any 70-seat jet aircraft by any "affiliate" of Delta would also exceed the current limit of "57" imposed by the Delta PWA (since CMR and ASA are very close to that number and will reach it by the end of the year.

My question is this: If ACA's operation of the 328J for DCI violates the Delta PWA, how come Republic's (owned by Chautauqua) operation of the EMB-170 doesn't?

Yes, I know that CHQ will operate the EMB-170 for UAL and not DCI. I also know that ACA will operate the A-319 for Independence and not for DCI. I don't see a difference.

How come the Delta pilots claim violation of your contract for a 32-seat jet, but do not claim the same for operation of a 78-seat jet and force Delta to cancel its agreement with Chautauqua?

 

[sweptback]

I am guessing that the fact that CHQ operates the 170s under the Republic certificiate is the difference here.

 

[CHQ Pilot]

The catch might be that Chautauqua does not own Republic. Republic Airlines and Chautauqua Airlines (two seperate companies) are both under Republic Airways Holdings (RAH). I believe the 170s can be operated because CHQ has no direct control over Republic Airlines. I'm not sure how the PWA is worded, but I think it would be hard to try to impose control on a company not bound by the contract to DCI.

I see you point however because of the close ties both airlines share. ACA I believe may fall into different ballpark because of the one company and operating certificate along with the fact they are forming their own brand.

 

[surplus1]

To the CHQ folks. Don't misunderstand. I have no personal objection to your doing this.

All I want to know is how the Delta pilots feel about their air tight Scope and what they plan to do about it.

If your idea about the separate certificate (CHQ vs REP) is accurate, then all Comair Holidings would have to do is get another certificate and it could bypass the restriction. Also, MSAG, which has more than one certificate can fly for DAL and continue to operate its 90-seat jets.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,

Look at Skywest. They are using plenty of CR7s for UAL----but the scope clause still only allows 57 at DCI. If the EMB-170 holds 70 people, then it is the same thing--just like Skywest using extra CR7s for UAL. If Skywest were to get planes larger than 70 seats, then there might be another problem. (like ACA getting A319s) Clear as mud!

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DrinkSweetTea]

Simple Answer. Republic is not Chautauqua. Same piggy bank, not the same company.

 

[FDJ2]

Surplus, it's a matter of configuration and code. As I understand it, if the E-170 is configured with 70 seats or less and is not used to fly DL code than it is o.k and DAL can contract with that carrier. If an aircraft is certified to fly over 70 seats and flies DL code than it does not fall under the exemption provided in section 1.D. of the DAL PWA and that aircraft must be flown by a DAL pilot.

 

[surplus1]

Thank you General and FDJ2.

General - I understand the SkyWest situation. They are operating the CRJ-700 for UAL, not the EMB-170. I agree that they are exempt from the "57" quota, with respect to those aircraft. It's not the same thing and that is why I did not mention SKYW in my post.

FDJ2 - Your explanation does not seem to fit the terms of your PWA, which sometimes contradicts itself. Below are the relevant sections of your PWA (verbatim) with emphasis (in bold) supplied by me and some comments.

A. According to the Delta PWA, the EMB-170 does NOT conform to the definition of "permitted aircraft type" and therefore is NOT exempt from Section 1.C. of the PWA (except of course when it is).

B. The "one of 57" clause (Section 1.A.17.c.) is imposed on all Delta Connection operators collectively.

Section 1.A.17. “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.

[Section 1]C. Scope
Except as provided in Sections 1 D. and F.:
1. All flying performed by or for the Company or any affiliate will be performed by pilots in accordance with the terms and conditions of this PWA.

2. Section 1 C. 1. includes without limitation all passenger flying, cargo flying, freight flying, positioning flights and ferry flights (scheduled and non-scheduled, revenue and non-revenue) and non-scheduled flights as defined in Section 2 of this PWA:

a. performed by or for the Company or any affiliate on aircraft owned, leased or operated by the Company or any affiliate;

b. performed on aircraft under the operational control of the Company or any affiliate (excluding advisory flight planning and following services provided by the Company on a fee for service basis to other air carriers);

c. performed for the Company or any affiliate by any affiliate or other air carrier;

d. performed by any air carrier under or utilizing a designator code, trade name, brand, logo, trademarks, service marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently or in the future utilized by the Company or any affiliate, or

e. performed on aircraft on which the Company or any affiliate has purchased or reserved blocked space or blocked seats for sale or resale to customers of the Company or any affiliate;

But for the exemption provided in Section 1.D. (below), Section 1.C. (above) gives the Delta pilots control of all of the Company's flying in aircraft with more than 70-seats.

D. Permitted Arrangement With Domestic Carriers

1. Section 1 C. will not apply to flying performed by any domestic air carrier(s) (other than the Company) for the Company or for any affiliate on any permitted aircraft type.
Exception: If a permitted aircraft type meets the certificated passenger seat requirement of Section 1 A. 17. b. when first placed into service by a Delta Connection Carrier but is subsequently certificated for operation in the United States with a maximum passenger seating capacity in excess of 50 passenger seats, this permitted aircraft type may continue to be operated by Delta Connection Carriers as long as all Delta Connection Carriers operate such permitted aircraft type with no more than 50 passenger seats and with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of 65,000 or fewer pounds at all times.

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.

Looking at the above, Section 1.D.1. does not exempt the EMB-170 because it is not a "permitted aircraft type".

Section 1.D.2. is the controversial section that attempts to regulate the activities of third parties. If the controversial aircraft is being operated for Delta (1.D.2.a) it is not exempt from Section 1.C. and must be flown by Delta pilots.

Section 1.D.2.c. does not permit the operation of any aircraft with more than 70 seats for a third party (other than Delta) or in behalf of the [DCI] carrier itself. A key conflicting element is the use of the term "configured" rather than "certificated". First the contract defines "permitted aircraft types" and bases their capacity on certification. However, Section 1.D.2.c. effectively removes the definition and says that you can operate any aircraft that you want to, a 747, a 737, an EMB-190, as long as you don't put more than 70-seats in that aircraft, thus negating the previous part of the contract, i.e., what a "permitted type" is supposed to be.

So we wind up with this. ASA or Comair could not operate the EMB-170 because they are both "affiliates" and affiliates cannot operate any aircraft certificated for more than 70-seats. SkyWest or Chautauqua cannot operate the EMB-170 for Delta. However, SkyWest and Chautauqua can both operate the EMB-170 for themselves, or for anyone else, as long as they take out 8 seats and operate with no more than 70-seats. That act appears to make an aircraft that is not a permitted type become a permitted type.

Additionally, any carrier that is not an "affiliate" can form a holding company, create a "new airline" with a different certificate and operate whatever it wants to operate for itself or for a third party. That is exactly why Mesa Air Group created Freedom. It was not to shaft the Mesa pilots, it was to circumvent the scope clause in the USAirways PWA. It is also why Republic Holdings was formed and a "new company" created (Republic) which can bypass the USAirways scope clause and the Delta scope clause.

The idea that Chautauqua and Republic are "separate" when both are subsidiaries of Republic Holdings, Inc. flies in the face of your contractual definition of "entity". There are three companies, but there is only one "entity" based on your own definition.

So your scope is more restrictive against the two companies that are subsidiaries of Delta than it is against subcontractors of Delta. In other words you would prohibit your own Company from operating the EMB-170, but you would allow it to outsource that equipment to SkyWest, Chautauqua or anybody else.

I really need to congratulate your attorneys. That's a fine piece of work. Matter of fact it comes close to genius.

 

[ACAFACVG]

Surplus,

The real ironic thing about DL canceling our contract is ACA has hired some DL furloughs who will very likely get furloughed again when the Dojets are taken away in October.

Seems the DL MEC didn't take that into consideration when they forced DL to cancel our contract. I hope you Comair guys stick to your guns and continue to tell the DL MEC to go to hell. Even if you help the DL MEC by helping their furloughs they don't return the favor. I'm sure the DL MEC will be shedding tears for 300 of their ALPA "brothers" that will be forced to hit the street in October and be replaced by Skyway pilots making lower wages. So tell me General, how does putting more of YOUR furloughs back on the street and replacing our pilots with lower paid pilots "restore the profession"? This would be laughable if it weren't for the pain and hardships this furlough will cause.

 

[surplus1]

Seems the DL MEC didn't take that into consideration when they forced DL to cancel our contract. I hope you Comair guys stick to your guns and continue to tell the DL MEC to go to hell.

What truly bothers me is that this type of thing is not the fault of the DL MEC, it is the flawed policy of ALPA apartheid and it is directed against members of ALPA who fly for regional carriers. That policy is supported by every mainline MEC, not just the DMEC.

The overall effects are far reaching and have affected or will affect all regional pilots, including those that are not members of ALPA.

The policy has created Freedom and resulted in the terrible contract at Mesa. It has created Republic and forced an inferior contract there. It has devastated the pilots of PDT and ALG. It has forced ALG, PDT, MES, TSA, CHQ, to give up their seniority partially and accept J4J. It has been copied by the APA and threatens the EGL pilots. It has resulted in unnecessary concessions at ARW and SKYW. It is negatively affecting the negotiations at ASA and XJT and will do the same at PCL. It affected MSA's negotiations.

All of those problems are the outgrowth of artificial and misguided Scope clauses in one form or another. They have not protected the mainline pilots from anything, they have hurt all regional pilots and worst of all, we the pilots are fighting among ourselves instead of confronting the real enemy.

If you read these boards you'll notice that Comair is always "under attack" from one or more mainline pilots and far more than any other regional, most of which are seldom mentioned. Why is that? Because so far, Comair is the only regional pilot group that has chosen to take on the 800# gorilla and tell ALPA that we reject apartheid and we demand our legal rights. For doing that we are personas non grata and they would love to bury us if they could.

Perhaps they will succeed and we will lose. Perhaps we will succeed and they will lose. The sad part is that we of ALPA have managed to let our own union become the advocate of foolish policies against its own members and a divisive agent instead of a unifying force. We have turned what could have been a win/win into a lose/lose.

By the time its over, management will have neutered contractual benefits that have taken decades to achieve and we will still be squabling with each other and blaming the LCC's for our own failings. We have divided ourselves and management emerges the victor. Smart move.

 

[General Lee]

ACAFA,

Look, I don't wish a furlough on anyone, and I am a major advocate for our furloughed pilots and other airlines' too. But, we have had an unfortunate job shift here at Delta and DCI. We are down 3000 total pilots at Delta (1060 are on furlough), but DCI has grown by more than 1000. Now it is apparent that the RJ strategy of "frequency is number 1" is wrong for Delta----and even ACA is trying to get into the game with larger planes at Indy. If you cannot see that helping another airline as they lower fares and fight against you directly with larger aircraft is counter productive, then you can't see the big picture. We don't want to fund another airline's success against us. The only other airline that has experience with the Dornier jets is Skyway---and they seem to want the growth and will do it for less. I don't make the decisions here---and management wants lower costs from all of us. Dalpa has set up rules that protect us---so it really doesn't make sense to fund a direct competitor. Sorry.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Now it is apparent that the RJ strategy of "frequency is number 1" is wrong for Delta----

Where does this come from? How is it that DCI is still placing aircraft orders when RJ's are now "wrong"? I would rather see that growth at mainline, like in the A318/319 range, but why spend 1/2 a billion dollars on crJ's if that's not the "right" aircraft???

 

[bvt1151]

I'm still confused, and General or FDJ haven't answered any of Surplus's questions.

After you finish those, perhaps you could answer mine:

Why are the Delta pilots enforcing the scope clause at only certain DCI carriers, specifically the carriers represented by ALPA (CMR, ASA, ACA) yet providing excuses for airlines not represented by ALPA (SKYW, CHQ)?

I don't believe that you are simply content by sitting back and saying, "well, they got us with a loophole."

Or are you?

 

[P38JLightning]

really?

Dalpa has set up rules that protect us---so it really doesn't make sense to fund a direct competitor. Sorry.

Bye Bye--General Lee


But its OK to fund Midwest Express?

Oh that's right, they promised not to use the Delta money over on the "Midwest side". Sure. I'm positive that as financialy strapped MidEx yearns for cash (so they can lower fares even more) not one dollar of that fee for departure gravy will make its way over to the "parent company" right?

By the way how is it that MidEx/Skyway will even be allowed (per the DALPA PWA) to do this feed? The "seperate certificate trick" as we ALL know (well okay, as MOST of us know) does not work, so the Delta pilots will either have to waive their scope in this case, or fail to file a grievance in the first place.

Of course its all a moot point, since Duane Woerth will put the thumbscrews to the DALPA boys and prevent the introduction of another outsource subcontractor, just like he PROMISED us he would. And he believes so strongly in "brand scope" he will make it happen.

Right?

 

[michael707767]

I don't know the answer to the original question, but I will call the union and find out. Could be as simple as Republic does not operate any E-170s yet. Delta actually jumped the gun. Until ACA operated a A320 in revenue service, they could keep flying for DCI. Does Republic actually operate the E-170 yet? I don't know. Anyway I will call the union today and see what they say.

 

[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?