No, I had not heard anything specific. I am currently on MIL leave to return this summer. I get my info (rumors) from Deltanet, this forum, and the occassional Email from buddies. Last Email (two weeks ago) said one could be out as early as this week...so I was just wondering.

At our LEC meeting they said late May, maybe June. They also said the DC-9 initial drawdown (6 airplanes were supposed to go this year) has been put off, to commence in 2012.

04-22-2011, 08:32 AM

#64372

ITSALLGOOD

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Position: Just happy to be here Boss!

Posts: 200

Thank you for the update. I will now sit down and listen to the regularly scheduled programming...scope/union debate.

04-22-2011, 01:06 PM

#64373

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Position: Light Chop

Posts: 23,286

Yesterday was Thursday, Thursday
Today i-is Friday, Friday (Partyin’)
We-we-we so excited
We so excited
We gonna have a ball today

Tomorrow is Saturday
And Sunday comes after...wards
I don’t want this weekend to end!

Come on! Click the image! Let's go!

[/QUOTE]

04-22-2011, 01:28 PM

#64374

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

If RAH is a single transportation system then we are contracting one airline that flies everything from 37 seaters to 162 seat Airbuses to fly for us and the multi-certificate charade is over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

As a Delta Connection carrier you can acquire and fly aircraft that exceed the limits of what is allowed for DCI as long as that airplane is certified to seat less than 106 and configured for less than 97 and if it seats between 71 and 97 seats you can't fly it on a Delta route. In fact, if RAH had stuck to 97-seat E175s and flew them as Midwest Airlines it'd been fine by the contract as long as they never touched our routes. But if RAH/Frontier is STS, then we are in essence contracting Frontier to fly as Delta Connection and you can check off every no no listed in Section 1D.

To me this is tantamount to having Jetblue acquire E175s and then having Jetblue pilots fly Delta painted E175s for DCI with all of the income from the guaranteed profit on that operation funneled right back into the coffers of Jetblue, an airline we compete with.

If that status quo continues and DALPA doesn't fight this then all JB needs to do is create another Part 121 certificate and they to would qualify for Delta Connection.

As of right now, there is nothing we can grieve thus we have to go back to the NMB for RAH to be declared STS. IMO, the NMB sure is baiting us to ask that question again. The IBT is who brought this suit and they're not stupid, if they had asked for the NMB to find RAH an STS then they're out of Delta, UsAir and American and they cannot afford that at all.

To me the NMB gave all of these precedents of airlines they found to be STS that were far less integrated than RAH to the point I think they were being funny. Hence, the T-ball analogy and hence the angst.

Or better yet, Bull Durham. Kevin Costner's Crash character is the NMB and that wussy Tim Robbin's Nuke character is RAH. Crash is telling you what Nuke is about to throw. All you have to do is hit it... and while I hope DALPA will be defining Air Carrier in such a way to preclude future "Holdings" airlines, there are a lot wiser people who've dealt with ALPA a lot longer that stoke my fear that it ain't happening. They ain't going to swing.

Totally emotional argument. Sorry to say it that way, and it is not meant to be condescending. The fact is until RAH flies a bus under a DAL code they have not violated anything. A grievance would be wasted money.. at this time. Доверяй, но проверяй. I'll leave it at that

04-22-2011, 01:35 PM

#64375

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow

Breach of contract, IF what's going on at RAH is not what you (DALPA) intended.

If it is, let us know.

Don't blow smoke up our ass and act like you are sending out some special double top secret investigative super undercover lawyer out to determine if there is an alternate meaning to the definition to the meaning of what an air carrier is, 3 years AFTER you signed the agreement.

The ONLY definition of air carrier that matters is the definition you (DALPA) understood it to mean when you signed the contract.

Period.

Like I told ftb.. until they fly a bus under the DAL code, I don't see a breach. Take the emotion of this out of the equation for a minute.. Once they DO try that... it's Katie bar the door.

04-22-2011, 01:59 PM

#64376

80ktsClamp

Da Hudge

Joined APC: Oct 2006

Position: Poodle Whisperer

Posts: 17,473

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Like I told ftb.. until they fly a bus under the DAL code, I don't see a breach. Take the emotion of this out of the equation for a minute.. Once they DO try that... it's Katie bar the door.

Read our section one and read the NMB's findings. Nothing emotional about it...

04-22-2011, 03:26 PM

#64377

Check Essential

Works Every Weekend

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: 737 ATL

Posts: 3,506

I was saddened to hear that the MEC has decided to have ALPA lawyers "further study" the RAH situation.

Its OK though.

Management knows just what to say to our union at a time like this:

04-22-2011, 03:28 PM

#64378

alfaromeo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Posts: 1,619

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enemyofthestate

The creative options are the ones within the framework of ALPA that the DPA has not bothered with, as articulated above. Our union does not fear DPA because they know they do not have the numbers - they are giving it just enough attention so that DPA thinks they are having an impact, but according to my reps they do not consider it a real threat at all.

What ALPA and our local union really fears, like vampires afraid of the light, is a true democratic movement that could unseat their empire. I have no respect for the DPA because they offer nothing but empty hope for the disenfranchised while ignoring the obvious solutions right under their noses.

Just imagine if they actually had the numbers that they claim to have actively voting in LEC elections, writing resolutions, initiating recalls. Take a lesson from Moak on how it's done.

In the mean time we will have the union we deserve.

One third of the reps were voted in 6 months ago. Another third 18 months ago, and the last 30 months ago. How is this not democratic?

Democracy mean you vote and then live with the results. Probably most of the pilots on this board do not like our current US President or did not like the one before him. Either way, tough beans, that is how democracy works. You don't get to stop paying taxes or get to keep voting until you get your way.

The problem with the majority of the webboard people is they don't respect democracy and they don't respect their fellow pilots. No matter how many elections we have, they always claim they need new votes. They don't want democracy, they want a tyranny of their own ideas, ones they consider superior to all other pilots.

Pilots are not sheep, nor stupid, nor lazy, nor fearful because they don't agree with you. The forum people do not represent the pilot group by a long shot and they most likely never will. Get over it. Almost every pilot that works in the union starts out with their hair on fire ready to change the world. Pretty shortly you figure out that there are no easy solutions there are only hard solutions. After that, you learn to keep pounding away, day after day, trying to come up with the hard solutions, while the webboard wonders call you names.

We have democracy in action, we have tremendous turnover in the MEC, we just don't have a tyranny of the webboard wonders. At some point you all should get over yourselves and realize that the pilots get the union they want, just not exactly the one YOU want. You are only one pilot and your vote counts just as much as the next guy in line, no more no less.

04-22-2011, 03:48 PM

#64379

forgot to bid

veut gagner à la loterie

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Position: Light Chop

Posts: 23,286

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Nope.. not true. Those airplanes have NOT been flying for us (as far as I know..) That is the crux of this discussion. WHen they DO. there is a grievance. until then.. nope. The company has not violated anything

The fact is until RAH flies a bus under a DAL code they have not violated anything. A grievance would be wasted money.. at this time. Доверяй, но проверяй. I'll leave it at that

Quick retort - Our contract says all flying must be done by Delta pilots with some exceptions (1.C) and one exception is Delta Connection (1.D).

Republic Airways Holdings entered into a capacity purchase agreement (PWA calls it a Category A operation 1.B.6) and therefore can fly as Delta Connection.

As far as our contract is concerned RAH must do both of the following:

1. Fly aircraft (1.D.1) that we permit for Delta Connection flying (1.B.40).

Their 50 seat E145s are permitted with no restrictions. (1.B.40.b)
Their 70 seat E170s are permitted but only 255 70+ seat jets are allowed throughout the DCI fleet (1.B.40.c)
Their 76 seat E175s are permitted but only 120 of those are allowed through out the DCI fleet and we know that number can flex for mainline growth, furloughs or if the CPZ flow is canceled (1.B.40.d-e)

2. Fly aircraft for UsAir, American, United, Continental and Frontier and even fly aircraft larger than we permit for Delta Connection (1.D.2) as long as that aircraft and the use of it meet the following requirements:

If it's larger than what is permitted for Delta Connection then it cannot be operated for Delta Connection. (1.D.2.a), and
The use of that aircraft does not cause Delta to downsize block hours (1.D.2.b), and
If the aircraft seats 71-97 passengers it cannot be flown on a city pair currently flown by Delta (1.D.2.c)
The aircraft is not allowed to be certified to seat more than 106 passengers and configured for use with more than 97 seats (1.D.2.c). And if such an aircraft is acquired then Delta shall terminate the DCI contract either once that airplane goes into service or 9 months after Delta became aware they were required. (1.D.2.c)

Now, we've been told that Republic Airways Holdings just owns multiple airlines and all are completely separate entities. The NMB just ruled in favor of the IBT's application that RAH is in essence one big airline... when it comes to representation. Therefore, status quo continues.

However, as ALPA said, the ruling provided a lot of ammo to potentially find RAH is a single transportation (airline) system. If that is the case then RAH's fleet consists of E135s, E140s, E145s, E170s, E175s, E190s, A318s, A319s and A320s. That is a violation of Section 1, Scope, D.2.c.

That's how I see it. If ALPA returns to the NMB and gets them to call RAH what it is, STS, or as ALPA (gulp) might be doing and ensures the definition of air carrier per Federal code now says holding companies are automatically STS, then that means RAH is STS and American Eagle/American Airlines are all one in the same.

And we can then return and file a grievance and terminate those contracts.

Sadly it just shuffles the flying to another DCI. But pursuing RAH as an STS is about ensuring WE AS DELTA PILOTS are not giving a green light that would permit UsAir, American, UCAL or any other to create an in-house E175 operation using pilots from their mainline seniority list and management, ownership and labor relations fully integrated, to fly for Delta as long as you technically have another certificate.

And that's what happens when a quick retort goes long winded.

Я только выполнять сумасшедшие Иванов справа в нижней части часов, слева в верхней части часов.