Significant Comair News

[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.

 

[Gator1999]

Mesaba and Mesa as potential / probable DCI additions

That's a new one...I'm sure it'll get a few laughs in the crew rooms at Mesaba.

 

[FDJ2]

Aside from the fact you contradict yourself in the same paragraph....


You have written that ACA can not perform DL codeshare flying if they operate a non permitted aircraft type (IE more than 70 seats). If ACA operated a 737 the DMEC would file a grievance to stop that flight, or cancel the codeshare. In fact, this contract language has provided a way for ACA to dump their DOJets on Delta when they decide to operate larger aircraft.

Skywest serves as a better example than does ACA because ACA does not seem to care whether they keep the DL code, or the Dorniers. Skywest can not operate CRJ900's or narrow bodies under the UA code due to an agreement between Delta and their pilots. Somebody somewhere is going without UA service due to DL's restriction and you can bet your last dime taking competitors like UA out of cities served by DL is anti-competitive.

In fact, to illustrate this by using the rediculous - if the "permitted aircraft types" language prejudicial to "Connection" pilots were removed from the DAL contract you would find that Continental, Northwest, and American Eagle would have to cease operations to be in compliance with your scope. But of course you would not see anything anti-competitive in that, would you?

~~~^~~~

I didn't contradict myself at all. The DAL PWA puts restrictions on DAL. DAL can only put DL code flying on other carriers if it meets with the restrictions laid out in the DAL PWA. DAL may not put DL code passengers on ACA aircraft if ACA flies other than permitted aircraft. If ACA chooses to fly other than permitted aircraft, that's o.k., but they do it knowing that they can no longer fly DL code. The same goes for Skywest. That is not anti-competitive, not even your twisted example . UA is free to fly all the CRJ900s they want, they can probably even do it with Skywest. The choice is up to Skywest, whether or not they choose to forfeight the DL code flying.

 

[Russ]

There have been many laws passed at city, county, state and federal government levels that have sat on the books until challenged in court and found illegal. I don't know if the portion of the contract that limits third party buisness dealings (90 seater at a DCI carrier for another airline) would pass the sniff test in court. I have a feeling we will find out in the next few years. Yeah, I know how the language of the contract reads, but it is semantics to say it doesn't descriminate against a regional who serves more than one major partner. There hasn't been any need to challenge it to date, but as some regional carriers start to acquire larger aircraft for X and see opportunities lost at Y they will consider finding out if it will stand. There are risks to hitching your wagon to one major partner, as regionals try to spread the risk around they may find themselves impeded by this portion of the PWA and challenge it.
Just because your lawyers say its legal doesn't mean the lawyers at the other table won't find a way to prove you wrong.

This is about the best I can do to bring the Gen out of what ever hole he is in.

 

[FDJ2]

There have been many laws passed at city, county, state and federal government levels that have sat on the books until challenged in court and found illegal. I don't know if the portion of the contract that limits third party buisness dealings (90 seater at a DCI carrier for another airline) would pass the sniff test in court. I have a feeling we will find out in the next few years. Yeah, I know how the language of the contract reads, but it is semantics to say it doesn't descriminate against a regional who serves more than one major partner. There hasn't been any need to challenge it to date, but as some regional carriers start to acquire larger aircraft for X and see opportunities lost at Y they will consider finding out if it will stand. There are risks to hitching your wagon to one major partner, as regionals try to spread the risk around they may find themselves impeded by this portion of the PWA and challenge it.
Just because your lawyers say its legal doesn't mean the lawyers at the other table won't find a way to prove you wrong.

This is about the best I can do to bring the Gen out of what ever hole he is in.

Contracts are about obligations and limitations. When the CMR pilots sign a contract requiring that all CMR aircraft be flown by CMR pilots, that puts a limitation on UA using a MESA pilot to fly a CMR aircraft in DEN. Is that anti competitive? Of course not. Yet it does put a limitation on a third and fourth party. Likewise, when DAL signs a contract with the DAL pilots not to put DL code on domestic carriers with over 90 seats (NWA/CAL exempted), DAL must conduct its busness accordingly.

 

[jarhead]

I am curious.....

Much has been said about the restrictions on DCI to have no more than 57 CRJ-700 in the DCI portfolio. As I understand it, those 57 airframes can be shuffled about between ASA, CMR, SKW, ACA, or Chit, in any combination that management chooses. CMR could have say, 8 seventy seaters one day, and have 25 or 30 the next day, just so the aggregate does not exceed a total of 57 at all DCI carriers.

Now, also I have read in these forums, that one way to test the "legality" of this 57 limit, would be to intentionally violate it, and see where a court challenge would lead to.

With those statements in mind, here is my question. How in the world would the Delta Pilots, or their MEC, ever even know whether or not there were more than 57 70 seaters spread around the regional carriers of DCI? Who is counting? How would any pilot ever know if more than 57 were in the combined stable? It seems to me that the 57 limit could be violated, and a challenge in court never come up, as knowledge of the excess airframes would never be known, unless management chose to disclose that information. Maybe I am over simplifying this, and perhaps the DMEC has people in an audit capacity reviewing the collective DCI books on aircraft in the stable. Can anyone enlighten me about this point?