Significant Comair News

[~~~^~~~]

October 24, 2003
TO: All Comair People
FROM: Randy Rademacher
SUBJECT: Update On Growth Opportunities

The memo I'm referencing was dated 10/28/03 and it is two pages long. I will try to scan it, but I'm not sure we can post it on the net since it is an internal memo.

 

[vc10]

FDJ2, the memo you posted does not reference the flying that was apparently up for grabs (according to the first post in this thread).

Can anyone post the memo that does reference that flying? i.e.

45 growth aircraft by 2007
Transfer of 30 aircraft to Comair
Eight CRJ 700 deliveries, confirmed
Snap back provisions
B scale for new employees

 

[abenaki]

I wouldn't believe in the validity of one of those new $20 bills if Don Osmundson handed it to me....let alone anything else he has to say......

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Cincy Enquirer

Comair appeals to flight crews


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airline promises 80 new jets if contracts altered

By James Pilcher
The Cincinnati Enquirer


Comair management Wednesday went directly to pilots and flight attendants in its quest to cut labor costs, promising more than 80 new jets if those workers would agree to adjust their contracts.

In Wednesday's memo to all flight crew members, obtained by the Enquirer, Comair vice president of flight operations Don Osmundsen made the promises. Those include getting 83 new jets for the Erlanger-based airline and the jobs that would come along with that new flying, as well as a guarantee that Comair flight crews would remain the highest paid in the regional industry.

The memo came less than a week after leaders of Comair's branch of the Air Line Pilots Association turned down a request to renegotiate its contract.

Wednesday's memo said Comair's corporate parent, Delta Air Lines, was giving the company until Saturday to get the concessions and lower costs; otherwise, those planes would be put out for bid to other carriers.

Pilot union leaders said Friday that management was not giving the pilots enough time. The decision to cut off talks also ended talks with the flight attendants, represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The pilots' current contract, reached after a bitter 89-day strike in the spring of 2001 almost killed the airline, does not expire until 2006. The flight attendants signed their five-year deal in July 2002.

ALPA chairman J.C. Lawson III on Wednesday confirmed the offer made in the memo. But he would not comment on what it would do to the possibility of reopening the contract or say what it would take to start talks.

He did say that the union was still open to the possibility of talks, although he would not comment on what concessions the airline was seeking.

Comair spokesman Nick Miller would not confirm the details of the memo, nor would he discuss what the airline was asking for in return for the promises made in the memo.

 

[rjcap]

So let me get this straight. To grow the airline you guys need to take a paycut?

I would then assume the next time the airline wants to grow that another pay cut would be in order till eventualy you are working for free. All in an effort to grow the airline.

I think your union should tell mgmt to give those shiny new airplanes to somebody else.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Just spin?

45 growth aircraft by 2007
Transfer of 30 aircraft to Comair
Eight CRJ 700 deliveries, confirmed
Snap back provisions
B scale for new employees

First, there are no more aircraft other than the rest of the original 70 seat order and maybe the DoJets. So where are they coming up with 45 growth aircraft by 2007. If we add the 70's and the DoJets (if the number 30 is correct), that is 38, so there is still 7 left. I am fairly certain that Delta does not want anymore 50 seaters and hasnt purchased additional 70 seaters, but I could be wrong here. Like earlier posts, Comair management does not have the ability to make this happen.
On the "B" scale item??? What are they getting at here? Isn't "B" scale a lower scale than current?

"Airline promises 80 new jets if contracts altered "

And this one is quite interesting as the number 80 comes from what source? Thats 35 more than the above reference. I think this is nothing but a subversive atempt at best by management.

 

[jetflyer]

Re: Just spin?

And this one is quite interesting as the number 80 comes from what source? Thats 35 more than the above reference. I think this is nothing but a subversive atempt at best by management.

80 aircraft he's talking about:
45 new growth aircraft
30 ACA CVG based dojets possibly being transfered to Comair
8 70 seat deliveries left

hope that helps,
Jet

 

[surplus1]

There are only two parties to the DAL contract, DAL and DAL pilots.

You are correct when you say there are only two parties to the Delta contract, but I think you named them incorrectly. The contract is between DAL and ALPA and it covers the pilots in the service of Delta.

Another aspect of your statement may be this. If its a two party contract between DAL and DAL pilots, then CMR and CMR pilots are not bound by it. Neither are ASA and ASA pilots. Is that right?

Careful, contracts are not as simple as you would have them be. If you do not choose to recognize that ALPA is the contracting party, you could be left with little.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Just spin?

45 growth aircraft by 2007
Transfer of 30 aircraft to Comair
Eight CRJ 700 deliveries, confirmed
Snap back provisions
B scale for new employees

First, there are no more aircraft other than the rest of the original 70 seat order and maybe the DoJets. So where are they coming up with 45 growth aircraft by 2007. If we add the 70's and the DoJets (if the number 30 is correct), that is 38, so there is still 7 left. I am fairly certain that Delta does not want anymore 50 seaters and hasnt purchased additional 70 seaters, but I could be wrong here. Like earlier posts, Comair management does not have the ability to make this happen.
On the "B" scale item??? What are they getting at here? Isn't "B" scale a lower scale than current?

"Airline promises 80 new jets if contracts altered "

And this one is quite interesting as the number 80 comes from what source? Thats 35 more than the above reference. I think this is nothing but a subversive atempt at best by management.

Try this concept as "food for thought".

33 Do-jets from ACA. Cancel that agreement.
8 CRJ-700 already on order and scheduled for Comair. These are not "growth" aircraft, they are already bought.

Sub total = 33

Cancel the agreemet with SKYW (they've been caught in bed with United - a competitor that Delta would not mind having go away).

That frees up aprox 47 slots (without exceeding the Delta PWA Scope ratios).

Convert any deferred orders for CRJ-200 to CRJ-700. Get them from Bombardier (they are hurting and will make a better deal now than before.

33 + 47 = 80

That leaves one problem, i.e., the 57 airframe limit of the Delta PWA. There are two ways to go. 1) Get them to change it; 2) violate it and see what an arbitrator might do when ALPA grieves it.

Delta, Inc. has plenty of leverage to get the DMEC to change that proviso, if they choose to push it.

Do you really think the senior D pilots won't sell that scope limit if it means protecting their pension or they pay rates? Think again.

Watch for a J4J deal, behind the scenes, to placate the Delta pilots and put the furloughees in the "growth" seats.

As for Comair management that's a joke. Everyone knows that Delta is calling these shots. Comair management just gets to sign the memos, as directed.

It will take Delta, Inc's signature on the bottom line to get Comair pilots to the table. JMO.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Just curious......If management at Delta/Comair is asking for concessions from the pilots and flight attendants, have they led by example and taken a paycut of their own?????


Mr. I.

 

[Frank Abagnale]

surplus

[That leaves one problem, i.e., the 57 airframe limit of the Delta PWA. There are two ways to go. 1) Get them to change it; 2) violate it and see what an arbitrator might do when ALPA grieves it. ]

you have had some excellent posts. can you explain the 57 limit and the pwa? thanks

 

[surplus1]

surplus

[That leaves one problem, i.e., the 57 airframe limit of the Delta PWA. There are two ways to go. 1) Get them to change it; 2) violate it and see what an arbitrator might do when ALPA grieves it. ]

you have had some excellent posts. can you explain the 57 limit and the pwa? thanks

Sure. PWA = Pilots' Working Agreement.

The Delta PWA contains a provision that prevents Delta from operating more than 57 CRJ-700 (70-seat regional jets) at all Delta Connection carriers. If Delta wishes to operate more than 57 of that type aircraft at Delta Connection there are only 2 ways to do that. 1) get the Delta pilots to agree or 2) violate the contract.

A third option would be for Delta to operate those aircraft at DAL, flown by Delta pilots.

 

[Frank Abagnale]

thank you surplus

8 open 700s

aca returns 33?

so 41 open slots

open, up for bid.

at least, maybe?

skywest & ual a big ?

where is the math?

what are the totals at the connections by a/c?

 

[FlyingSig]

If Delta wishes to operate more than 57 of that type aircraft at Delta Connection there are only 2 ways to do that. 1) get the Delta pilots to agree or 2) violate the contract.

A third option would be for Delta to operate those aircraft at DAL, flown by Delta pilots.

Or the forth option and follow the actual intent of the pwa.... grow the mainline.

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. This number (57) will be increased to a maximum of 75 at the rate of one aircraft for each increment of 10,000 scheduled block hours of Company flying in the previous year above the scheduled block hours set forth for that year in the block hour plan set forth in Section 1 E. 1., (i.e., prior to any resets under Section 1 E. 5. or 6.).


Delta pilots don't have to fly the CRJ-700... Comair pilots can have every last one of them. All Delta has to do is add enough block hours that Delta pilots are too busy flying 737's/MD88's/757's etc....

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

You are correct when you say there are only two parties to the Delta contract, but I think you named them incorrectly. The contract is between DAL and ALPA and it covers the pilots in the service of Delta.

Another aspect of your statement may be this. If its a two party contract between DAL and DAL pilots, then CMR and CMR pilots are not bound by it. Neither are ASA and ASA pilots. Is that right?

Careful, contracts are not as simple as you would have them be. If you do not choose to recognize that ALPA is the contracting party, you could be left with little.

You are correct. The Delta pilots are covered by the Delta PWA. We at the connection carriers are not. They are not covered by our contracts either. Neither are bound by the other's contract, in a legal sense. Delta IS bound by the contract--in the legal sense. It must adjust its operation to be in compliance with the Delta PWA. As you said, however, we are NOT bound by the Delta contract. We ARE bound by ALPA's constitution and bylaws which prevent us from undermining another ALPA carrier's contract. You could learn a lot, S, if you didn't think you knew everything.

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[surplus1]

We ARE bound by ALPA's constitution and bylaws which prevent us from undermining another ALPA carrier's contract.

That's an interesting observation. It is unfortunate, especially in the light of the propenderance of available evidence, that ALPA itself does not appear to believe that it is bound by its own Constitution, but chooses to apply it in both a perjudicial and discriminatory manner to certain of its members or to often ignore it completely.

You could learn a lot, S, if you didn't think you knew everything.

Somewhere along the way, in college or perhaps in late high school, I picked up this lexicon.

Provided by Surplus1

Freshman -- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not.

Sophomore -- He who knows not and knows that he knows not.

Junior - He who knows and knows not that he knows.

Senior - He who knows and knows that he knows.

I'm curious; in which of the four categories would you place yourself? Would you please tell us? I would not want to be accused of identifying your placement incorrectly.

In the art of debate it is widely recognized that attacks on the messenger/oponent are prima facie evidence that your arguements are lacking in substance and weak. Your attempts to attack me personally are not only amusing to me, they are the finest former of flattery that you could give me. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

That's an interesting observation. It is unfortunate, especially in the light of the propenderance of available evidence, that ALPA itself does not appear to believe that it is bound by its own Constitution, but chooses to apply it in both a perjudicial and discriminatory manner to certain of its members or to often ignore it completely.



Somewhere along the way, in college or perhaps in late high school, I picked up this lexicon.



I'm curious; in which of the four categories would you place yourself? Would you please tell us? I would not want to be accused of identifying your placement incorrectly.

In the art of debate it is widely recognized that attacks on the messenger/oponent are prima facie evidence that your arguements are lacking in substance and weak. Your attempts to attack me personally are not only amusing to me, they are the finest former of flattery that you could give me. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

About what I figured. You got backed into a corner, again, and elected, again, to change the subject rather than admit that you are wrong.

Once again for those interested in relevance: Comair and ASA pilots are not legally bound by the Delta pilotsPWA, Delta is. Comair and ASA are bound within ALPA's BL&Constitution to adhere to the Delta pilot's PWA--and vice versa. Delta cannot sign anything with Comair and ASA which violates the Delta PWA, and Comair and ASA cannot sign anything with Delta which violates their carriers PWAs. Surplus is wrong. End of story. Apparently he is A--he knows not, and he knows not that he knows not. Kind of like the arbitration, etc, etc, etc.

Find another spokesman guys, he will lead us into the abyss.

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[surplus1]

Or the forth option and follow the actual intent of the pwa.... grow the mainline.

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. This number (57) will be increased to a maximum of 75 at the rate of one aircraft for each increment of 10,000 scheduled block hours of Company flying in the previous year above the scheduled block hours set forth for that year in the block hour plan set forth in Section 1 E. 1., (i.e., prior to any resets under Section 1 E. 5. or 6.).


Delta pilots don't have to fly the CRJ-700... Comair pilots can have every last one of them. All Delta has to do is add enough block hours that Delta pilots are too busy flying 737's/MD88's/757's etc....

Your contractual quote is accurate and your point well taken. Unfortunately, the road to hell and back is paved with [good] intentions.

I argue that the basic premise of attempting to artificially force growth in a direction that contradicts the indicators of market forces is an error of logic. As current conditions verify, it serves no purpose other than to constrain the Company's efforts to manage the economic pressures and does not produce the intended growth (of the mainline or anything else).

Good contractual language should serve not only to protect the job security of employess, but simultaneously afford the Company the flexibility to respond rapidly to changing market conditions. In my opinion, the section you quoted does neither.

I can only hope that your group will see the need to adjust its thought processes to a more logical solution. I'm not holding my breath, however.

The mainline will grow when the demand for services that it can provide exceeds the supply of capacity that is available. Meanwhile, the required "lift" must be provided in hulls that allow profit making operations under existing conditions. The efforts to meet current need and match supply to demand (profitably) is the only reason for the increase in service with regional jets. It is not a conspiracy to increase RJ flying at the expense of mainline jobs.

As soon as market conditions justify it the number of RJs will stagnate or shrink and the number of mainline jets will increase. This cannot be accomplished profitably by the application of an artificial Scope clause restriction no matter how wordy or "intended".

I have no argument with what you would like to see happen. The flaw is not in your desires but rather, in the methodology used to achieve your groups' objectives.

PS. That boy of yours playing football yet? Best regards.

 

[FDJ2]

You are correct when you say there are only two parties to the Delta contract, but I think you named them incorrectly. The contract is between DAL and ALPA and it covers the pilots in the service of Delta.

That is incorrect and a common misunderstanding. Look at the first page of the contract.

Agreement between Delta Air Lines, Inc. and The Air Line Pilots in the service of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

ALPA is listed as a representative, but not a party to the contract. Much like a lawyer in any negotiation, they can represent you, you can give them power of attorney, but at the end of the day they are not the party to the agreement, you are.

 

[FDJ2]

Your contractual quote is accurate and your point well taken. Unfortunately, the road to hell and back is paved with [good] intentions.

I argue that the basic premise of attempting to artificially force growth in a direction that contradicts the indicators of market forces is an error of logic. As current conditions verify, it serves no purpose other than to constrain the Company's efforts to manage the economic pressures and does not produce the intended growth (of the mainline or anything else).

This is another common misunderstanding. The Delta PWA does not limit RJs, the size of RJs that the Company can fly, the routes, stage lengths or block hours of RJs. The Delta PWA only limits how much of that flying can be outsourced to non DAL pilots. If Delta needs more RJs they can fly them with DAL pilots. There is no artificial limits on the RJ anymore than there are on the 737. As a matter of fact, if anything, there are fewer limitationss on RJs than the 737, since not all RJs need to be flown by DAL pilots.

Also, just to clarify an earlier comment, both ASA and CMR are bound by the DAL PWA, since both companies signed irrevocable agreements to be bound by the DAL PWA as a condition of their acquisition.