Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-14-2011, 08:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 259
cliff notes question: Has DALPA confirmed that they intend to not pursue scope violations in the case of RAH?
Last edited by unit monster; 04-14-2011 at 08:34 AM. Reason: grammar
04-14-2011, 08:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Anyone heard from Johnson29 lately?
04-14-2011, 08:17 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
04-14-2011, 08:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
How about looking back to when this language was written (I know you weren't around for that, sorry) and see how it was applied?
04-14-2011, 09:11 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Time for the daily Check Essential update. Since we have so many posts here, it might have been easy to overlook this one, so I'll repost it. It asks a very serious and important question in response to Luftwaffe's post above:
For all the pro-ALPA guys out there, please post the portion of Section 1 that states: "It is understood by all parties that the entities FAA certificate shall be the determinitive factor in deciding whether flying in violation of this section has occured."
I've looked and I can't find it. It might be there, I just haven't found it. Can anyone help?
Carl
Says who?
This is the crux of the problem. I hope we get a thorough explanation of where this notion comes from. The contract says nothing about certificates and neither does the federal definition of an air carrier.
This certificate thing just seems like a convenient explanation that the ALPA lawyers made up out of thin air in order to justify their reluctance to enforce any part of any mainline scope clause. Can they point to any instances in the past where the government defined "air carrier" by certificate? The govt uses the same criteria as the NMB. Ownership and control. Common or interlocking management, Boards of Directors, operational integration, etc. etc.
They "pierce the corporate veil". They look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation. A "certificate" is nothing more than a piece of paper in some FAA bureaucrat's desk drawer. It has no bearing on how Bedford manages his empire.
Most importantly for our purposes, separate certificates does not prevent RAH from using the money they make from their Delta guaranteed profit flights to set up and subsidize other flights that directly compete with Delta.
If you believe the certificate reasoning then what is the purpose of that paragraph in our contract? Its useless. How could it ever be enforced if all an airline has to do is put their large aircraft on separate certificates?
This is the crux of the problem. I hope we get a thorough explanation of where this notion comes from. The contract says nothing about certificates and neither does the federal definition of an air carrier.
This certificate thing just seems like a convenient explanation that the ALPA lawyers made up out of thin air in order to justify their reluctance to enforce any part of any mainline scope clause. Can they point to any instances in the past where the government defined "air carrier" by certificate? The govt uses the same criteria as the NMB. Ownership and control. Common or interlocking management, Boards of Directors, operational integration, etc. etc.
They "pierce the corporate veil". They look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation. A "certificate" is nothing more than a piece of paper in some FAA bureaucrat's desk drawer. It has no bearing on how Bedford manages his empire.
Most importantly for our purposes, separate certificates does not prevent RAH from using the money they make from their Delta guaranteed profit flights to set up and subsidize other flights that directly compete with Delta.
If you believe the certificate reasoning then what is the purpose of that paragraph in our contract? Its useless. How could it ever be enforced if all an airline has to do is put their large aircraft on separate certificates?
I've looked and I can't find it. It might be there, I just haven't found it. Can anyone help?
Carl
04-14-2011, 09:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Captain Jack
Posts: 1,003
With negotiations coming up I bought a new coffee cup to let others know how I feel. And yes these cups are on sale online.
04-14-2011, 09:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
04-14-2011, 09:45 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: MSP 7ERA
Posts: 58
The fact the union could just say nothing here move along is bizarre. Contracts and law are constantly being interpreted and case law redefined. The RAH ruling does seem to refine that RAH and it's subsidiaries are essentially one airline. By not challenging this we ensure it becomes precedent and practice, if we fight it and lose we are no different than where we are now And if we win it could be the beginning of restoring Scope.
Seems like there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. ALPA, Bueller, bueller...
http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2011/38n039.pdf
Last edited by Enemyofthestate; 04-14-2011 at 10:03 AM.
04-14-2011, 09:55 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
04-14-2011, 09:56 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
