Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-16-2011, 06:31 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I don't get your logic here. So what if someone goes after our feed? If our purchasing that entity would then result in a monopoly, the DOJ would be remiss if they then approved that. And then you go on to say that it would be a good reason to fight, yet in this very same post you castigate guys that wanted to fight the scope issue because we had zero chance of winning. What is ACL's definition of time to fight?
03-16-2011, 06:43 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
03-16-2011, 06:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,958
So I guess there are two takeaways from this RAH situation:
1) Delta is funding it's competition and growth thereof and is not going to do anything about it which is not only questionable, but scary, and more importantly,
2) ALPA let the language out of the contract that would've held, without a doubt, RAH in contempt of our Section 1.
Thus, for all of the money we pay to the wizards of smart at DALPA and Herndon they couldn't see this coming and they're not going to do anything about it now. Shame.
Heck of a blueprint for every regional airline that knows fee for departure is ending.
Is this not being litigated because ALPA wants RAH? I wouldn't blame them, in time, could be a lot of money.
1) Delta is funding it's competition and growth thereof and is not going to do anything about it which is not only questionable, but scary, and more importantly,
2) ALPA let the language out of the contract that would've held, without a doubt, RAH in contempt of our Section 1.
Thus, for all of the money we pay to the wizards of smart at DALPA and Herndon they couldn't see this coming and they're not going to do anything about it now. Shame.
Heck of a blueprint for every regional airline that knows fee for departure is ending.
Is this not being litigated because ALPA wants RAH? I wouldn't blame them, in time, could be a lot of money.
03-16-2011, 06:50 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I believe DAL owns 16% of either SA or RAH. Interesting, isn't it?
03-16-2011, 07:00 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
RJET has been operating that way for many years with no issue (grievance filed) from any DAL line pilots. Republic has been operating the E-190 for many moons without a peep. It is in the way the corporation is structured. After all it was structured this way to get around ours, UAUA's and LCC"s scope sections.
The is a such thing as negotiating and contracting in good faith. If any party to a contract purposely acts in a way that is counter to the understanding of the agreement, I would argue that that party is in breach. Period.
03-16-2011, 07:02 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
first, like dirty said, we don't have an SLI with comair, asa, skywest, chq, etc.
second, sure when you buy a ticket on delta to nrt you may at some point fly on a dci carrier or the oversized dci carrier known as alaska, but that's all a part of the scope arrangement.
i don't see how this passes the test. The PWA defines an air carrier as: a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
I see both the Midwest flying on the E190s and the Frontier flying on E190s and A319s is in violation of 1.D.2.
RAH has has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all of the other carriers operations, that's control according to section 1. Their pilots are all on 1 list, how that's not operating in essence as a single carrier is beyond me.
All of this started when CHQ got caught by APA back in 03 or 04. APA needs to step back in and do something about it, for the sake of Delta pilots.
second, sure when you buy a ticket on delta to nrt you may at some point fly on a dci carrier or the oversized dci carrier known as alaska, but that's all a part of the scope arrangement.
i don't see how this passes the test. The PWA defines an air carrier as: a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
I see both the Midwest flying on the E190s and the Frontier flying on E190s and A319s is in violation of 1.D.2.
RAH has has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all of the other carriers operations, that's control according to section 1. Their pilots are all on 1 list, how that's not operating in essence as a single carrier is beyond me.
All of this started when CHQ got caught by APA back in 03 or 04. APA needs to step back in and do something about it, for the sake of Delta pilots.
I see it exactly the same. You have to use the definitions, not just the scope language.
03-16-2011, 07:04 AM
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: DAL Widebody
Posts: 104
I recall a discussion I had with a-then Scheduling Committee Chair about manning formulas several years ago (back in the days when you could actually drop trips/reserve days). DAL was moving aggressively toward increasing staffing efficiencies. This chairman adamantly stated that DAL would never go down to the minimum contractual manning because, citing ‘past practice,’ they never had before. If I recall correctly, he even said this would be a basis for filing a grievance.
ALPA’s reliance on past practices has shown a lack of foreward thinking that has damaged us significantly in the aftermath of contract negotiations, as the dust settles and new rules are implemented.
Similarly, I had a conversation with the R&I Chair – at the time when USAir pilots were losing their pensions in bankruptcy and it was rumored UAL’s were at risk. I asked him about our pensions – and he guaranteed they were safe…that it just couldn’t happen here.
03-16-2011, 07:04 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I don't get your logic here. So what if someone goes after our feed? If our purchasing that entity would then result in a monopoly, the DOJ would be remiss if they then approved that. And then you go on to say that it would be a good reason to fight, yet in this very same post you castigate guys that wanted to fight the scope issue because we had zero chance of winning. What is ACL's definition of time to fight?
As for when I feel it is a time to fight, when our PWA has been violated. In Section six, when we are not going to get what we deserve, but to be able to fight effectively we need to be unified. Reality is that this thread and the DPA thread prove that we can be divided and conquered very easily. We can still change that though.
03-16-2011, 07:09 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Well, lets use the Slot Swap as an example. Not a monopoly of NYC in the least but still not approved. Lets us the V Blue example. Not a monopoly in the least, but not DOJ approved. Now look at Alaska, not a monopoly, little to no overlap, and you assume the DOJ will rubber stamp it without someone else trying to buy them? The logic fails for me.
As for when I feel it is a time to fight, when our PWA has been violated. In Section six, when we are not going to get what we deserve, but to be able to fight effectively we need to be unified. Reality is that this thread and the DPA thread prove that we can be divided and conquered very easily. We can still change that though.
As for when I feel it is a time to fight, when our PWA has been violated. In Section six, when we are not going to get what we deserve, but to be able to fight effectively we need to be unified. Reality is that this thread and the DPA thread prove that we can be divided and conquered very easily. We can still change that though.
The only thing being conquered is ALPA...
03-16-2011, 07:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
