The REAL ASA/Delta deal...

[OCP]

SEC filing.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793733/000110465905055563/a05-20173_1ex99d2.htm

Its interesting reading, if not a bit dry. An interesting bit at the end
The Company refers to ASA.

"

In addition, Delta may immediately terminate the ASA Delta Connection Agreement upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events, among others:​

​

• if either SkyWest or the Company enters into a Merger"​

 

[Texx]

SEC filing.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793733/000110465905055563/a05-20173_1ex99d2.htm

Its interesting reading, if not a bit dry. An interesting bit at the end
The Company refers to ASA.

"

In addition, Delta may immediately terminate the ASA Delta Connection Agreement upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events, among others:

•if either SkyWest or the Company enters into a Merger"​

If I'm correct the "Skywest Airlines" DCI Agreement also says this.

 

[CoATP]

There is a provision in the Skywest purchase of ASA from Delta that includes a holdback of $120 mil (or so) if Delta drops ASA or Skywest as a regional. So the big question is how much they want that $$ before going to a lower cost carrier for capacity

 

[Texx]

There is a provision in the Skywest purchase of ASA from Delta that includes a holdback of $120 mil (or so) if Delta drops ASA or Skywest as a regional. So the big question is how much they want that $$ before going to a lower cost carrier for capacity

Thing is ASA is lower than CMR, Mesa and SKYW as of June 2005.

 

[sweptback]

This is a very interesting tidbit (towards the end under section 10):

ASA Delta Connection Agreement—In connection with the sale of the Company to SkyWest, the Company and Delta entered into the ASA Delta Connection Agreement, as of September 8, 2005. As of September 30, 2005, the Company operated 104 CRJ200s, 35 CRJ700s and 12 ATRs aircraft for Delta under the ASA Delta Connection Agreement. Additionally, between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007, 6 CRJ200s and 22 CRJ700s are scheduled to be added to the Company’s fleet for use in the Delta Connection program. Further, prior to December 31, 2007, 12 ATRs are scheduled to be removed from the Company’s fleet.

 

[sweptback]

Also, this section:

Commencing in 2008 and continuing thereafter, if Delta in certain circumstances seeks to place additional aircraft into service in the Delta Connection program, the Company will be offered the opportunity to bid on such additional aircraft to the extent required to maintain its percentage of aircraft within the Delta Connection program as of December 31, 2007 (such percentage, the “ASA Percentage”). If the Company is not awarded a portion of such additional flying, it shall be offered the opportunity to match the economic terms and conditions of the winning bid, so as to maintain the ASA Percentage. If the Company elects to match the winning bid, additional Delta Connection aircraft will be added to the scope of the ASA Delta Connection Agreement (as modified with respect to such additional aircraft to account for the economic terms and conditions of the winning bid with respect to such aircraft) so as to maintain the ASA Percentage.

 

[FlyingDawg]

Thing is ASA is lower than CMR, Mesa and SKYW as of June 2005.

Where did you get this information?

There is alot more to costs than pilot pay. You would also need to factor in FA's, gate agents, management costs, and don't forget aircraft and fuel consumption.

Unless you have copys of the agreements that each DCI carrier has with DL, then you don't know the actual costs to DL. In the case of CHQ, I know from the DOT filings in regards to the Republic certificate, that this info is confidential and closely guarded. RAH doesn't want each codeshare to know what the other codeshare pays.

 

[Texx]

Where did you get this information?

There is alot more to costs than pilot pay. You would also need to factor in FA's, gate agents, management costs, and don't forget aircraft and fuel consumption.

Unless you have copys of the agreements that each DCI carrier has with DL, then you don't know the actual costs to DL. In the case of CHQ, I know from the DOT filings in regards to the Republic certificate, that this info is confidential and closely guarded. RAH doesn't want each codeshare to know what the other codeshare pays.

Which company that flies CRJ-200s has the highest and lowest Cost per Avilable seat mile(cents/asm)?

The highest are:
Independence with 11.0 cents/asm,
Air Wisconsin with 10.9 cents/asm.

The lowest are:
Skywest with 9.2 cents/asm.
And tied for the bottom?
Pinnacle & ASA with 9.1 cents/asm.

ComAir:10.7 cents/asm.
Mesa: 10.2 cents/asm

These figures come from Aviation Daily Magazine, November 4th issue for the 12 month period ending June 2005.

Also, the DCI agreements do not show the cost. Only the parameters.

 

["GO AROUND"]

So I guess that answers where the 22 70's are going over the next two yrs.

Hey Texx, sombody needs to stick those numbers in managments face and ask what they have to say.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Go Around:

Not any more. ALPA was arguing that these airplanes should be flown by mainline in the 1113c hearings. Delta is waiting for the arbitration to be completed to reach a determination on the "fleet plan." Everything is stopped at ASA and SkyWest, with regard to future Delta flying, until the "fleet plan" is passed down.

Our union is arguing against our interests on this issue. Let us hope that they fail in their quest to take away airplanes which already had delivery dates for our airline (or get them cancelled).

 

[PCL_128]

Go Around:

Not any more. ALPA was arguing that these airplanes should be flown by mainline in the 1113c hearings. Delta is waiting for the arbitration to be completed to reach a determination on the "fleet plan." Everything is stopped at ASA and SkyWest, with regard to future Delta flying, until the "fleet plan" is passed down.

Our union is arguing against our interests on this issue. Let us hope that they fail in their quest to take away airplanes which already had delivery dates for our airline (or get them cancelled).

Good grief! You don't even have these airplanes yet. How can ALPA "take away" airplanes that haven't even arrived yet?

The RJDC kooks are getting crazier by the day.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Rocket Science?

Good grief! You don't even have these airplanes yet. How can ALPA "take away" airplanes that haven't even arrived yet?


PCL, it does not take a Rocket Scientist to figure out what "future deliveries" and "fleet plan" mean. I'm not an RJDC fan or supporter either, but give it a break. We are at the mercy of DALPA and Fins is right, ALPA is not concerned with ASA.

 

["GO AROUND"]

Seems pretty ironic that only a few years ago it was below a DAL pilot to fly a lowly RJ, but I guess they will come down from their high horse now and do it.
If they are gonna under cut our rate just to get them on property and then reneg. the rates later, their bringing down the industry more than they said the regionals ever did!

This whole industry makes me want to uke: . I'm so tired of working for an airline that is dependant on another airline. It's time to move on or get out of this rat race.

 

[michael707767]

Not any more. ALPA was arguing that these airplanes should be flown by mainline in the 1113c hearings. Delta is waiting for the arbitration to be completed to reach a determination on the "fleet plan." Everything is stopped at ASA and SkyWest, with regard to future Delta flying, until the "fleet plan" is passed down.

Our union is arguing against our interests on this issue. Let us hope that they fail in their quest to take away airplanes which already had delivery dates for our airline (or get them cancelled).

actually, we are not trying to take anything away from you. We are trying to enforce our contract. As of right now, ASA or Skywest cannot fly anything larger than a 70 seater for DCI. We will enforce that as long as that is what our contract states and we will fight to protect that language in our contract.

No where has it been suggested that we will or should take these airplanes. We cannot take them. First of all, they don't belong to Delta, so even if we wanted to take them it could not happen. Second, there is nothing stating you cannot fly them for DCI if they are configured for 70 seats. Third, there is nothing preventing you from taking delivery of them at 90(86?) seats and flying them for another carrier.

 

[ASApuppy]

I don't think ALPA is trying to take airplanes from us. ASA ordered airplanes that were illegal per the current DALPA PWA in hopes that the backrupcy proceedings would grant them relief and they would enjoy a speedy delivery slot. I rank this as an immoral tactic and I honestly hope DALPA prevails. The line needs to be defended. Honestly, if ASA had ordered the 7E7, would you be arguing that ALPA is against us?
However, I don't think mainline will be able to cost effectively operate that aircraft. Look at the E-170 operation at SLC. Wow! I can't believe Delta makes money with that kind of ground support. Catering truck, dual belt loaders, jetway, all mainline, for 70 seats.

 

[~~~^~~~]

ASA Puppy:

Maybe it depends on when your perspective begins. D-ALPA's negotiations have always been subjective, moving targest, based on the whims of their current MEC leadership. A few years ago a military pilot could not be expected to fly a lowly RJ, now that has changed. The Delta PWA itself was "illegal" based on ALPA's failure to properly represent its membership after airlines ASA and Comair were acquired by Delta. That conflict is the subject of litigation which the Court has accelerated since there is again the real prospect for harm in the current arbitration being argued by ALPA.

These arbitration hearings / negotiations are been kept quiet and D-ALPA is not going to come right out and say that they have bid under ASA's 70 seat rates. However, we do know that D-ALPA has proposed the negotiation of 79 seat rates, which is exactly like us negotiating 105 seat rates. It is not a show of "support" if you get my drift.

We also know that ALPA wants to assign a dollar value to ASA's flying.

This week, the union upped the estimate to $150 million after assigning a value to rights that would allow Delta to shift flying to up to 200 regional jets with 70 seats each.
[SIZE=-1]The union said Delta's proposal hasn't assigned additional value for that option.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Delta financial chief Ed Bastian said the regional jet issue is "a fundamental part of the transformation plan" but worth less than ALPA's estimate. He declined to elaborate.[/SIZE]

So, ALPA wants $150,000,000.00 in consideration for allowing DCI to fly Delta code and you think ALPA is not trying to transfer flying to their preferred pilots? Where is that $150,000,000.00 going to come from?

Heck, think of it this way. The additional 75 CRJ700's would need about 770 pilots. $150,000,000 / 770 = $194,805.20 and you don't think ALPA has put a price on our head?

At the same time ASA is trying to negotiate a contract, ALPA is doing everything in its power to reduce the need for our services. We are getting attacked on the top end by a predatory MEC who can staff our most senior airpane with its most junior pilots for less money. On the bottom end, the union is trying to assign a financial penalty for even using our services to begin with.

 

[michael707767]

These arbitration hearings / negotiations are been kept quiet and D-ALPA is not going to come right out and say that they have bid under ASA's 70 seat rates. However, we do know that D-ALPA has proposed the negotiation of 79 seat rates, which is exactly like us negotiating 105 seat rates. It is not a show of "support" if you get my drift.

I don't know how you see us negotiating rates for a 79 seat aircraft as a the same as you negotiating 105 seat rates. Right now, as our contract stands, a 79 seat aircraft flown for Delta will be flown by Delta pilots. Tell me, what is wrong with negotiating pay rates for an aircraft that has to be flown by us? Imagine the gall of the Delta pilots, wanting to negotiate pay rates for an aircraft that contractually should be flown by them. What are they thinking?

Now, if we were trying to negotiate rates for a 70 seater, I would agree with you.

 

[surplus1]

I don't know how you see us negotiating rates for a 79 seat aircraft as a the same as you negotiating 105 seat rates. Right now, as our contract stands, a 79 seat aircraft flown for Delta will be flown by Delta pilots. Tell me, what is wrong with negotiating pay rates for an aircraft that has to be flown by us? Imagine the gall of the Delta pilots, wanting to negotiate pay rates for an aircraft that contractually should be flown by them. What are they thinking?

Now, if we were trying to negotiate rates for a 70 seater, I would agree with you.

The problem with your "logic" is that it is based exclusively on the illogical assumption that ALPA (or your MEC) have the "right" to unilaterally determine what aircraft should be operated by a non-Delta airline. [The same applies to others and is not limited to Delta].

If you do have that right, then it follows ASA would have an equal right to underbid your 150 seat aircraft or to write contractual language that prevents you from operating anything with less than 150 seats.

ALPA's duplicity is transparent. It openly discriminates against ALPA members employed by small airlines in favor of those employed by large airlines and, of course, it also arbitrarily decides which airline is classified as "small" and which is "large". That policy violates Federal laws which require labor unions to fairly represent ALL of their members and specifically prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory behavior as well as bad faith negotiations.

In attempting to favor some of its members in preference to others, ALPA has harmed ALL of its members.

 

[michael707767]

The problem with your "logic" is that it is based exclusively on the illogical assumption that ALPA (or your MEC) have the "right" to unilaterally determine what aircraft should be operated by a non-Delta airline. [The same applies to others and is not limited to Delta].

If you do have that right, then it follows ASA would have an equal right to underbid your 150 seat aircraft or to write contractual language that prevents you from operating anything with less than 150 seats.

.

Tell ya what, if the ASA pilots want to get scope preventing me from flying a 150 seat jet on the ASA code, fine by me.

We don't control what you do, we only control what Delta does. There is nothing in our contract which would prevent ASA or any other DCI carrier from operating any aircraft they want to operate. Like Independence you could operate anything you want. Delta would be forced to drop you as a DCI carrier, but again, our scope limts what Delta does with its code, not what you do with your own company. Independence was proof of this. When they wanted too, nothing in our contract prevented them from operating an Airbus.

If you have a beef with the fact that ASA management choses to continue to operate as a DCI airline and thereby agrees to the conditions placed on them by the Delta pilots contract, take it up with them. Tell em you want to go it alone.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't know how you see us negotiating rates for a 79 seat aircraft as a the same as you negotiating 105 seat rates.

Now, if we were trying to negotiate rates for a 70 seater, I would agree with you.

You are trying to negotiate rates for the 70 seater. The 79 seater and the 70 seater are the same airplane & my butt is sitting on the type rating for the airplane your MEC is allegedly undercutting my pay rates to fly, or at least disuade Delta from operating.

 

[737 Pylt]

You are trying to negotiate rates for the 70 seater. The 79 seater and the 70 seater are the same airplane & my butt is sitting on the type rating for the airplane your MEC is allegedly undercutting my pay rates to fly, or at least disuade Delta from operating.

Take it up with the manufacturer! 70 Seats is the limit!

So by your logic...How many routes has your "butt" been sitting on that an MD88 used to fly? I am sick of being undercut on routes that used to be flown by mainline planes that are now being flown by undercutting DCI pilots (by your logic)!
737

 

[michael707767]

You are trying to negotiate rates for the 70 seater. The 79 seater and the 70 seater are the same airplane & my butt is sitting on the type rating for the airplane your MEC is allegedly undercutting my pay rates to fly, or at least disuade Delta from operating.

first, even if it is the same airplane, with 70 seats its legal for you to fly it, with 79 seats, its not. Second, if the type rating becomes a way to get around scope we are all in trouble. So by your logic the simple fact that an E-170 is the same type as the E-190 means we have to consider CHQ if we negotiate rates for the 190?

oh and by the way, there is only speculation on what pay rate is being talked about for a 79 seater. Nothing has been released.

 

[Tomct]

Yes, and they contunually make us wait for gates. I mean like 30-40 minutes because some jack@ss cannot get that thing off the gate. They need to go back to CMH or whereever the He11 they came from!