csmith said:
Section 1 covers exactly this situation. I am forgetful at this time if SKYwest would qualify as an affiliate or not. I do not believe that we own 30% of them, but I cannot remember exactly how much we own. Regardless, section 1 further describes some other factors which would cause them to be considered an affiliate. This would preclude them from operating 737s. If they indeed are not considered an affiliate, they can absolutely operate them under code share with UAL--unless the UAL PWA precludes it. My guess is that it does. More than likely, I would guess that this is covered under the agreement with Skywest and its agreement with Delta--although it really doesn't matter one way or the other. A violation of this section wouyld be very detrimental to Delta and would make the Delta pilots fairly wealthy if such violation would continue.
No offense, but you may be misreading what I'm talking about. Both your PWA and United's PWA would prevent Skywest from operating 737's as a "Delta Connection" or a "United Express" This whole discussion has nothing to do with that.
The gist of the conversation is that Skywest was allegedly considering,
should UAL liquidate, buying UAL's 737's and operating them independently as Skywest. No code share, no "connection". None of the flying in those aircraft would be conducted
for or under any agreement with DAL. Whether or not they are actually even thinking about that is just speculation, which I didn't originate. I really don't have a clue what they may be thinking.
However, if Skywest did make that decision, my contention is that your PWA with Delta cannot prevent it. Skywest, IMO, does not meet the definition of "Affiliate" in your PWA. Also, Delta does not own any part of Skywest and, again IMO, your definition of "Control" does not apply.
That leaves only 1 part, again IMO, of your PWA that
attempts to prevent them from operating such equipment in their own right. I do not believe that that part of your PWA is legally enforceable against Skywest, unless the contract between Delta and Skywest stipulates that Skywest accepts those terms of your PWA with Delta. The part I reference is Section 1. D. 2. (c).
Although you enjoy touting the Delta scope section as a sieve, it is actually quite solid, and being upheld as we speak. Again, once the violation occurs, and Delta continues doing business with them, any lawsuit Skywest may have against Delta is really superfulous-sp., Surplus.
You are too sensitive sometimes and you make assumptions about my motives or misconstrue my statements. I'm not against you guys and harbor no ill will. All I want you to do is keep your tentacles off my stuff. What you do with your own stuff is none of my business. We just happen to have different ideas about what is defined as your stuff and what is defined as mine. I don't accept your exclusive right to be the authors of the definition. That's all.
I said nothing about Delta's scope being a sieve. What I did say was that "most scope dikes are sieves". Actually, I think the Delta Scope caluse is the best there is, it only goes astray in a few areas. I also think that those areas (not the rest) were better in your '96 PWA. What other major airline pilot groups have often refered to as "Delta's stupid scope" is not my idea. The fact is that Delta's scope has kept Delta's head above water in these trying times, while the ridiculous scope of the other mega carriers has contributed to their demise. That may not have been the intent of your group, but it has been the result none the less.
If a "violation" were to occur and Delta continued to do business with SKYW, there would obviously be no need for litigation on the part of SKYW. We agree on that. However, if Delta should cancel it's contract with Skywest based on an
alleged violation of an agreement (your PWA) that Skywest never signed, then Skywest would indeed have cause for an action against Delta. That would hardly be "superfluous".
Please keep in mind that this is a technical contractual issue that we are discussing. There is no need for us to quarrel over it.
Or could this just be another missive on behalf of JC Lawson--who lost the 737s he was promised last time.
C
You were going great until you said that. Now you've lost me completely. Whatever you may think of Lawson,
he has never been offered or promised any 737's by anyone, has never lost any 737's or any other type of large aircraft. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Also I do not send missives on behalf of anyone. My opinios (or missives if you prefer) are my own and made on my own behalf.
As a final thought, there is one thing that you guys often seem to ignore. A contract is only as good as the good will between the parties that made it. At the point in time that either one of them decides that it is no longer in his best interest to honor the contract, he simply breaks it using whatever justification is appropriate in his opinion. That's when the lawsuits begin. Lawsuits never keep a broken contract in place, they merely allocate the damages to whomever the court decides is aggrieved. That is reality whether you or I like it or not.
A labor contract is even worse. When a company decides to violate it, it does. The union can then grieve it, which grievance will be denied if the Company realy wants to do whatever. Then you take it to arbitration. The rules, as you well know, of arbitration are not the same as a court of law but the outcome is just as final and there is no appeal. You can't take the Company to court because you don't like the arbitrator's ruling. On the other hand if the Company dislikes the arbitrator's ruling enough, they will simply ignore it. Then the union will have to take the Company to court. They can fight you for years before you get a decision one way or the other. By that time, most contractual disputes are moot anyway.
