Regional Feed via Codeshare Partner
06-10-2012, 03:33 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Regional Feed via Codeshare Partner
Sorry, Scambo, don't mean to put you on the stand, but you brought up a very good point here.
So reposted this from another thread, and my curiosity peaked.
What protections do we have against another codeshare partner, such as ALK, utilizing their regional feed as a way to sidestep our scope protections?
Can the company just start ordering more 76-seaters and start flying them under a ALK regional code while claiming it doesn't violate our scope provisions?
Does this TA protect us from sometime like this?
I am the worlds slowest typist. So, I have to keep what I type brief.
History:
Republic: Violation of scope, ALPA said our language was too weak to fight it. As a holding company they Currently operate narrowbodies. They have a large order for the C-series (more narrowbodies)
Today:
We excuse republic from the scope clause of yesterday and they still operate narrowbodies and have a large orderbook for more (C-series)
We cap 76 seaters in our scope clause, but allow Alaska to continue domestic codeshare which opens us up to their scope clause:
Last week, Republic's CEO said he would operate the C-series as an Alaska codeshare and fly skyteam passengers.
This TA is not about 76 seaters only. It is about outsourcing the domestic system.
------------
Please, Some fast typist with a knowledge of the history put this together because it would take me two days.
History:
Republic: Violation of scope, ALPA said our language was too weak to fight it. As a holding company they Currently operate narrowbodies. They have a large order for the C-series (more narrowbodies)
Today:
We excuse republic from the scope clause of yesterday and they still operate narrowbodies and have a large orderbook for more (C-series)
We cap 76 seaters in our scope clause, but allow Alaska to continue domestic codeshare which opens us up to their scope clause:
Last week, Republic's CEO said he would operate the C-series as an Alaska codeshare and fly skyteam passengers.
This TA is not about 76 seaters only. It is about outsourcing the domestic system.
------------
Please, Some fast typist with a knowledge of the history put this together because it would take me two days.
What protections do we have against another codeshare partner, such as ALK, utilizing their regional feed as a way to sidestep our scope protections?
Can the company just start ordering more 76-seaters and start flying them under a ALK regional code while claiming it doesn't violate our scope provisions?
Does this TA protect us from sometime like this?
06-10-2012, 06:43 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Yes
06-10-2012, 08:46 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 264
It disgusts me how often this is brought up in conversation by the senior guys I fly with at my contract airline.
06-10-2012, 08:54 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,169
Sorry, Scambo, don't mean to put you on the stand, but you brought up a very good point here.
So reposted this from another thread, and my curiosity peaked.
What protections do we have against another codeshare partner, such as ALK, utilizing their regional feed as a way to sidestep our scope protections?
Can the company just start ordering more 76-seaters and start flying them under a ALK regional code while claiming it doesn't violate our scope provisions?
Does this TA protect us from sometime like this?
So reposted this from another thread, and my curiosity peaked.
What protections do we have against another codeshare partner, such as ALK, utilizing their regional feed as a way to sidestep our scope protections?
Can the company just start ordering more 76-seaters and start flying them under a ALK regional code while claiming it doesn't violate our scope provisions?
Does this TA protect us from sometime like this?
All Alaska operations are covered as Category B in our Scope section. Any Alaska feed would also be considered under Category B. They would then be limited the same as Alaska, which is the lesser of 86 seats (I think off the top of my head) or 50% of the pax being DL coded passengers. All of the other restrictions on Category B operations would also apply, as if the airplane were being operated by Alaska itself.
This is a good question, but not a threat given our scope language.
06-10-2012, 10:02 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Shiz covered this, but to expand a little bit NO this is not possible.
All Alaska operations are covered as Category B in our Scope section. Any Alaska feed would also be considered under Category B. They would then be limited the same as Alaska, which is the lesser of 86 seats (I think off the top of my head) or 50% of the pax being DL coded passengers. All of the other restrictions on Category B operations would also apply, as if the airplane were being operated by Alaska itself.
This is a good question, but not a threat given our scope language.
All Alaska operations are covered as Category B in our Scope section. Any Alaska feed would also be considered under Category B. They would then be limited the same as Alaska, which is the lesser of 86 seats (I think off the top of my head) or 50% of the pax being DL coded passengers. All of the other restrictions on Category B operations would also apply, as if the airplane were being operated by Alaska itself.
This is a good question, but not a threat given our scope language.
06-10-2012, 10:08 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Anyone know what the current breakdown is of 70 / 76 seaters per DCI carrier?
Thought it was 600 total ( 375 50's, 102 70's, and 123 76's)
Under the terms of our current agreement Horizon Air's 76 seat Q400's wouldn't count towards our scope count, but under the proposed TA turboprops would no longer be exempt from the 76 seater limitations.
Horizon Air has approximately 50 Q400's which would now count towards the new 76 hard cap limit of 325 under the terms of this TA.
I'm sure that doesn't mean that the company could only add another 20 76 seaters, so what am I missing here?
Thought it was 600 total ( 375 50's, 102 70's, and 123 76's)
Under the terms of our current agreement Horizon Air's 76 seat Q400's wouldn't count towards our scope count, but under the proposed TA turboprops would no longer be exempt from the 76 seater limitations.
Horizon Air has approximately 50 Q400's which would now count towards the new 76 hard cap limit of 325 under the terms of this TA.
I'm sure that doesn't mean that the company could only add another 20 76 seaters, so what am I missing here?
06-10-2012, 10:20 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,169
Anyone know what the current breakdown is of 70 / 76 seaters per DCI carrier?
Thought it was 600 total ( 375 50's, 102 70's, and 123 76's)
Under the terms of our current agreement Horizon Air's 76 seat Q400's wouldn't count towards our scope count, but under the proposed TA turboprops would no longer be exempt from the 76 seater limitations.
Horizon Air has approximately 50 Q400's which would now count towards the new 76 hard cap limit of 325 under the terms of this TA.
I'm sure that doesn't mean that the company could only add another 20 76 seaters, so what am I missing here?
Thought it was 600 total ( 375 50's, 102 70's, and 123 76's)
Under the terms of our current agreement Horizon Air's 76 seat Q400's wouldn't count towards our scope count, but under the proposed TA turboprops would no longer be exempt from the 76 seater limitations.
Horizon Air has approximately 50 Q400's which would now count towards the new 76 hard cap limit of 325 under the terms of this TA.
I'm sure that doesn't mean that the company could only add another 20 76 seaters, so what am I missing here?
They are limited to 50% of the airplane with DL coded pax. So if a Q has 76 seats, they can only have 38 DL coded pax on the airplane. Additionally, Delta can't schedule Alaska's airplanes the way they have nearly unlimited control over DCI's routes/flight schedules.
Horizon is merely an extension of Alaska as far as our PWA is concerned and they are limited in the same way. Horizon's Q400's do not fly as DCI. Delta cannot buy a bunch of Q400's for Horizon to operate under a Capacity Purchase Agreement without Horizon then falling under our Category A (or C depending on if it's a prorate agreement) definition in the PWA. If that were the case, they would count as 76 seaters under the implementation schedule and hard cap. This of course would require DAL to choose a Q400 instead of a CRJ900 which apparently is their aim.
Last edited by LeineLodge; 06-10-2012 at 10:23 AM. Reason: clarification of 76 seat cap
06-10-2012, 10:29 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
I don't have it in front of me, but I'm 99% sure the "hard cap" only applies to Category A and C operations (DCI and/or prorate agreements). Horizon is treated as if they were Alaska themselves (Category B operations.)
They are limited to 50% of the airplane with DL coded pax. So if a Q has 76 seats, they can only have 38 DL coded pax on the airplane. Additionally, Delta can't schedule Alaska's airplanes the way they have nearly unlimited control over DCI's routes/flight schedules.
Horizon is merely an extension of Alaska as far as our PWA is concerned and they are limited in the same way. Horizon's Q400's do not fly as DCI. Delta cannot buy a bunch of Q400's for Horizon to operate under a Capacity Purchase Agreement without Horizon then falling under our Category A (or C depending on if it's a prorate agreement) definition in the PWA. If that were the case, they would count as 76 seaters under the implementation schedule and hard cap. This of course would require DAL to choose a Q400 instead of a CRJ900 which apparently is their aim.
They are limited to 50% of the airplane with DL coded pax. So if a Q has 76 seats, they can only have 38 DL coded pax on the airplane. Additionally, Delta can't schedule Alaska's airplanes the way they have nearly unlimited control over DCI's routes/flight schedules.
Horizon is merely an extension of Alaska as far as our PWA is concerned and they are limited in the same way. Horizon's Q400's do not fly as DCI. Delta cannot buy a bunch of Q400's for Horizon to operate under a Capacity Purchase Agreement without Horizon then falling under our Category A (or C depending on if it's a prorate agreement) definition in the PWA. If that were the case, they would count as 76 seaters under the implementation schedule and hard cap. This of course would require DAL to choose a Q400 instead of a CRJ900 which apparently is their aim.
Makes a little more sense.
I worry about the size of our DCI fleet under a post merger scenario.
06-10-2012, 10:32 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,169
I personally see nothing good for us in an Alaska merger. The only guys that might benefit would be the west coasters that would eventually have more access to western U.S. flying/basing.
06-10-2012, 10:38 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,169
I just checked the negotiator's notepad again.
The % of DL coded pax will drop for Category B (Alaska/Horizon) operations under the TA from 50% to 35%. There is an exception for SEA-MSP and SEA-ATL to remain at 50%.
The example I gave of the 76 seat Q400 would only be able to carry 26 (35%) not 38 DL coded pax. This is another area we tightened up in the TA. Good stuff IMO.
The % of DL coded pax will drop for Category B (Alaska/Horizon) operations under the TA from 50% to 35%. There is an exception for SEA-MSP and SEA-ATL to remain at 50%.
The example I gave of the 76 seat Q400 would only be able to carry 26 (35%) not 38 DL coded pax. This is another area we tightened up in the TA. Good stuff IMO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
