Bucking Bar

Fiigmo, as I see it, if Delta wants to acquire an airline with non-permitted aircraft, we merge them.

We don't know what Alaska's capacity purchase agreements look like, but we do know our contract language. Your scenario requires a blatant breach of our agreement.

Now if we acquired Alaska Air Lines and Alaska Air Group wanted to outsource to SkyWest their flying as Alaska Air Group it is assumed that would be AS code. If Skywest tried to fill Alaska's shoes, I think it would still be a "Category B" operation limited to 70 seats, 85,000 pounds or a Dash 8 like Horizon has(d).

The Company is required to notify us before the negotiation of any such agreement.

I guess your scenario is that we might acquire an airline which has already outsourced 90, or 100 seat, jets. If so, I think our contract protects us.

If you're saying we might renegotiate to allow it ... well, that's were I always hope our coordination between MEC's as a national union helps us ...

Scoop

Are you including William (Don'tcha just love the feel of gold) Devane who can go from airborne>landed>stoped>prop stopped> outside pitching gold in .00000003 seconds?


Scoop

tsquare

This was one thing that had me concerned in C12K. The fact that OUR scope might be dependent on another carrier's scope. Specifically I was concerned about Alaska. While I didn't think a merger with them was of practical matter, conceptually it bothered me.

As to AMR merging with Alaska, I think Mr Anderson will make AMR pay thru the nose to do so, and I think the resultant company there would be extremely painful for the pilots. (I still think there is much pain coming when the LCC/AMR merger is approved, but that is a different theory). If they make a play for JetBlue, the resulting requirement for divestiture in JFK will virtually assure another SWA/AT scenario. JB guys get royally screwed, and there will be a free for all for a bunch of slots in JFK. I am sure SWA has the lawsuits all booted up waiting to insert the date of filing as the only thing to be done.

The only good thing about the current furball is that there might be a push to force LCC to divest some of those DCA slots. Hopefully we can convince the DOT that DAL will offer flights to someplace other than Florida and that that would be a better deal than giving them to SWA or JB.

JMHO. But this is going to get interesting in the coming weeks...

Purple Drank

That's a less-than-ringing vote of confidence!

If Bar's concerned...we should all be concerned!

firstmob

No problem, been there done that. I thought it was funny also. Firstmob

tsquare

Interesting theory. I have a long KEF layover so I will study this a little more, but as I said in my other post.. and to the best of my recollection... this is precisely the scenario that concerned me about our scope section. I hope you are right, but the hair on the back of my neck is a little active.

How about this as a workaround: What if DAL were to keep AK as a separate entity (a la AirTran at SWA) and use that as a wedge? Is that possible or practical? I think that is what you are saying above as having the protection of OUR scope, but I am not so sure... I dunno.. too much coffee this morning.

Bucking Bar

It is more that they piggyback off or our scope. That should aid our case in a merger (since our flying is ours and only their 737's are theirs).

Bottom line: Non permitted aircraft should equal merger if acquired.

I don't think we would bother acquiring Alaska's 737's without also acquiring their brand. It would be senseless to buy the airline just to have it spring back up again with lower costs as Skywest dba Alaska.

index

You have a high degree of confidence in RA's business acumen. I don't dispute that.

So...in DALPA's rush to get a quick agreement during a period of record profits, did RA make DALPA "pay thru the nose," or did we make them "pay thru the nose"?

Hint: we still have no retirement and we working for less than we did 12 years ago---even more when you consider how inflation has eroded our buying power, not to mention we're working much more with fewer pilots.

tsquare

Your argument is diluted when you use the phrases such as "rush to get thru a quick agreement". I would love to discuss the business aspect of all this as I find it interesting. Since you apparently have a desire to turn it into a dALPA bash fest, have at it, but I am not interested in playing.

buh bye.

johnso29

RIP and tailwinds.......