Fleet tracking
#631
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: Here and there
Posts: 1,906
Mesabah is making the assertion that they will reduce the number of 76 seat RJs (in compliance with the LOA) by using the “parked 76 seaters” to replace old 70 seat jets.
I.e we will use the MRJ 900/E175 to replace old ratty MRJ700s/E170s since we can’t use them as 76 seaters. Which is separate from the “make all 76 seaters in to 70 seaters.
I.e we will use the MRJ 900/E175 to replace old ratty MRJ700s/E170s since we can’t use them as 76 seaters. Which is separate from the “make all 76 seaters in to 70 seaters.
Ahh, I see that now, thanks.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
#632
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Another thing to consider, is that the Covid19 crisis has already shrunk DCI permanently, DAL can simply block seats to comply, instead of actually parking jets. It's hard to say how DALPA will handle that, since you are reducing ASMs, and not actual block hours.
#633
This is Delta’s interpretation also. In the grand scheme of things, DAL and DALPA would likely negotiate a new LOA before they park 35 and start removing seats from the others when the time comes to deal with it.
#634
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: Here and there
Posts: 1,906
Don’t take this the wrong way, but who at Delta have you talked to has made this determination? It’s probably not a stretch to say no one because DALPA hasn’t even addressed this topic publicly. I ask you to reread the language I posted above. It’s clear cut that the flow-down agreement has to be renewed or they must park the 35 jets. CPZ has “ceased to be available” and given the lack of a new agreement, those jets have to be parked until, like you said, a new LOA is reached or a new DCI carrier takes their place.
#635
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 102
That is the interpretation we heard from our union that Delta would take
Don’t take this the wrong way, but who at Delta have you talked to has made this determination? It’s probably not a stretch to say no one because DALPA hasn’t even addressed this topic publicly. I ask you to reread the language I posted above. It’s clear cut that the flow-down agreement has to be renewed or they must park the 35 jets. CPZ has “ceased to be available” and given the lack of a new agreement, those jets have to be parked until, like you said, a new LOA is reached or a new DCI carrier takes their place.
#636
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,378
Not to mention, when the DL & WestJet JV gets approved, it's going to reduce the number of RJ's needed. Go back prior to the Delta & Aeromexico JV, look how much RJ flying was done to Mexico, some out of ATL, some LAX, some SLC. Look who does it now, hint, its not a DCI carrier... Same thing is going to happen with Canada.
#638
Don’t take this the wrong way, but who at Delta have you talked to has made this determination? It’s probably not a stretch to say no one because DALPA hasn’t even addressed this topic publicly. I ask you to reread the language I posted above. It’s clear cut that the flow-down agreement has to be renewed or they must park the 35 jets. CPZ has “ceased to be available” and given the lack of a new agreement, those jets have to be parked until, like you said, a new LOA is reached or a new DCI carrier takes their place.
#640
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Position: ATL FO
Posts: 189
Don’t take this the wrong way, but who at Delta have you talked to has made this determination? It’s probably not a stretch to say no one because DALPA hasn’t even addressed this topic publicly. I ask you to reread the language I posted above. It’s clear cut that the flow-down agreement has to be renewed or they must park the 35 jets. CPZ has “ceased to be available” and given the lack of a new agreement, those jets have to be parked until, like you said, a new LOA is reached or a new DCI carrier takes their place.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post