The Few.....The Not so Proud.... Yes Voter
02-12-2018, 03:25 PM
#191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 193
From the q&a
Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.
Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.
02-12-2018, 03:28 PM
#192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
So this is in regards to aquisition. Nothing stopping them from flying them under a CPA unlimited as far as I know
02-12-2018, 03:34 PM
#193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 193
I swear I saw something somewhere that said something about that and a weight limit applied. If it was over that they had to use seniority list pilots. I’m trying to find it and watch the olympics. I’m probably wrong.
02-12-2018, 03:37 PM
#194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 456
BL. “Regional Aircraft” means aircraft certificated for operation in the United States with a maximum gross take- off weight of eighty six (86) thousand pounds or less and operated with seventy six (76) or fewer passenger seats. In the event there is a transaction of or by a regional carrier subject to 1.E., and to the extent that ALPA negotiates a definition of regional aircraft allowing for different weight or seats in other agreements covering mainline carriers, the parties will examine whether different seat or weight limits than the foregoing should apply. Any dispute about the applicable definition shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the System Board and resolved in accordance with the procedures of 1.G
Does our Scope clause protect us from having regional airlines doing Spirit flying? I’ve heard that SkyWest and Trans States have the Mitsubishi MRJ on order with no customer.
No other carrier, regional, or otherwise can do Spirit’s flying, except if Spirit contracts out to have it performed. Such contracting would be subject to the time limits and circumstances in Section 1.B.2. Spirit could, perhaps, code share with a regional carrier using the MRJ. However, in a typical code share agreement the carrier doing the flying keeps 99% of the revenue and, as with contracting out, there is no reason for Spirit to give up revenue from a profitable route just to have a regional carrier perform it using equipment with less seating capacity. Fee for service arrangements would be even more impractical because Spirit would not only be losing much of the revenue from the flying, they would be paying to have another carrier do flying Spirit that could do profitably, or for passenger feed – something Spirit has never done and which would make no sense.
Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.
Does our Scope clause protect us from having regional airlines doing Spirit flying? I’ve heard that SkyWest and Trans States have the Mitsubishi MRJ on order with no customer.
No other carrier, regional, or otherwise can do Spirit’s flying, except if Spirit contracts out to have it performed. Such contracting would be subject to the time limits and circumstances in Section 1.B.2. Spirit could, perhaps, code share with a regional carrier using the MRJ. However, in a typical code share agreement the carrier doing the flying keeps 99% of the revenue and, as with contracting out, there is no reason for Spirit to give up revenue from a profitable route just to have a regional carrier perform it using equipment with less seating capacity. Fee for service arrangements would be even more impractical because Spirit would not only be losing much of the revenue from the flying, they would be paying to have another carrier do flying Spirit that could do profitably, or for passenger feed – something Spirit has never done and which would make no sense.
Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.
02-12-2018, 03:42 PM
#195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
BL. “Regional Aircraft” means aircraft certificated for operation in the United States with a maximum gross take- off weight of eighty six (86) thousand pounds or less and operated with seventy six (76) or fewer passenger seats. In the event there is a transaction of or by a regional carrier subject to 1.E., and to the extent that ALPA negotiates a definition of regional aircraft allowing for different weight or seats in other agreements covering mainline carriers, the parties will examine whether different seat or weight limits than the foregoing should apply. Any dispute about the applicable definition shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the System Board and resolved in accordance with the procedures of 1.G
Agreed but that is for aquisition. If Skywest or translates gets MRJ or anything like it what’s to stop Spirit from entering into a CPA with those companies for as many aircraft or block hours as they’d like. Heck it doesn’t have to be a regional it could be frontier for airbuses.
Art said codeshared aren’t profitable accept for the flying carrier but CPA they’ve said falls under codeshare. The legacy carriers define “express” flying separately for obvious reasons. We do not
02-12-2018, 03:45 PM
#196
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
BL. “Regional Aircraft” means aircraft certificated for operation in the United States with a maximum gross take- off weight of eighty six (86) thousand pounds or less and operated with seventy six (76) or fewer passenger seats. In the event there is a transaction of or by a regional carrier subject to 1.E., and to the extent that ALPA negotiates a definition of regional aircraft allowing for different weight or seats in other agreements covering mainline carriers, the parties will examine whether different seat or weight limits than the foregoing should apply. Any dispute about the applicable definition shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the System Board and resolved in accordance with the procedures of 1.G
Does our Scope clause protect us from having regional airlines doing Spirit flying? I’ve heard that SkyWest and Trans States have the Mitsubishi MRJ on order with no customer.
No other carrier, regional, or otherwise can do Spirit’s flying, except if Spirit contracts out to have it performed. Such contracting would be subject to the time limits and circumstances in Section 1.B.2. Spirit could, perhaps, code share with a regional carrier using the MRJ. However, in a typical code share agreement the carrier doing the flying keeps 99% of the revenue and, as with contracting out, there is no reason for Spirit to give up revenue from a profitable route just to have a regional carrier perform it using equipment with less seating capacity. Fee for service arrangements would be even more impractical because Spirit would not only be losing much of the revenue from the flying, they would be paying to have another carrier do flying Spirit that could do profitably, or for passenger feed – something Spirit has never done and which would make no sense.
Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.
Does our Scope clause protect us from having regional airlines doing Spirit flying? I’ve heard that SkyWest and Trans States have the Mitsubishi MRJ on order with no customer.
No other carrier, regional, or otherwise can do Spirit’s flying, except if Spirit contracts out to have it performed. Such contracting would be subject to the time limits and circumstances in Section 1.B.2. Spirit could, perhaps, code share with a regional carrier using the MRJ. However, in a typical code share agreement the carrier doing the flying keeps 99% of the revenue and, as with contracting out, there is no reason for Spirit to give up revenue from a profitable route just to have a regional carrier perform it using equipment with less seating capacity. Fee for service arrangements would be even more impractical because Spirit would not only be losing much of the revenue from the flying, they would be paying to have another carrier do flying Spirit that could do profitably, or for passenger feed – something Spirit has never done and which would make no sense.
Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.
We can’t be shrunk but they can grow via one of these agreements and stagnate us
02-12-2018, 03:53 PM
#197
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 456
Agreed but that is for aquisition. If Skywest or translates gets MRJ or anything like it what’s to stop Spirit from entering into a CPA with those companies for as many aircraft or block hours as they’d like. Heck it doesn’t have to be a regional it could be frontier for airbuses.
Art said codeshared aren’t profitable accept for the flying carrier but CPA they’ve said falls under codeshare. The legacy carriers define “express” flying separately for obvious reasons. We do not
Art said codeshared aren’t profitable accept for the flying carrier but CPA they’ve said falls under codeshare. The legacy carriers define “express” flying separately for obvious reasons. We do not
02-12-2018, 03:59 PM
#198
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Spirit would have to change its whole business model in my opinion. Regional carriers only serve a purpose for spoke and hub operations. Plus I believe Spirit uses the same model SWA uses, why fly a 88 seat jet into a market when the can send a 182 pax jet in there and make more money. I don’t believe Spirit goes into a market unless they can make money on a A320, just like SWA is with the 737.
Also to business model- it’s changed once and it could change again. Likely- no
02-12-2018, 04:09 PM
#199
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 456
I can generally agree with that. However there are some markets we fly 319s and not 321s. I’m sure there are markets that they would like to fly something smaller. However smaller being related to a CPA is a historical norm but it doesn’t have to be in this TA. Skywest could get C series or 737s and Spirit could enter into a cpa on an unlimited basis.
Also to business model- it’s changed once and it could change again. Likely- no
Also to business model- it’s changed once and it could change again. Likely- no
B. Scope
2. Notwithstanding Section 1.B.1. above, the Company may assign or contract out revenue flying for a period not in excess of ninety (90) days per occurrence if (a) such conduct is necessary to accomplish the needs of the service of the Company, and (b) the Company does not have sufficient aircraft or pilots to perform the revenue flying assigned or contracted out, and (c) no Company pilot is furloughed as a result of such contracting out of revenue flying. The Company shall provide notice to the Association prior to entering any agreement to assign or contract out revenue flying
What protections are in place to protect us from the Company buying a regional airline then giving block hours to that airline to fly a “Spirit Express?”
Under the current CBA, there is no protection with respect to this scenario. Under the TA, Section 1.E specifically provides that (1) no Spirit pilot can be placed on furlough as the result of an acquisition of another airline; (2) system wide block hours shall not be less than 95% of the system wide scheduled block hours which existed in the 12 months prior to the acquisition, and (3) the Company cannot allocate flying for the purpose of securing contractual relief or concessions, i.e. no whipsawing.
In addition, in the event that the relationship with the regional carrier includes code sharing, the Company would also be bound by the block hour protection in B.3, which prevents any reduction in scheduled system wide block hours on an annual basis as a result of code sharing.
Finally, if the acquired regional carrier has aircraft above the new 76 seat, 86,000 pound limit it is subject to the ratio requirement of E.4, which requires the Company to grow Spirit in proportion to the acquired carrier. This provides substantial protection for our flying and limits the incentive to engage in this sort of transaction
02-12-2018, 04:11 PM
#200
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Wouldn’t this section protect us from that unless they wanted to coshare?
B. Scope
2. Notwithstanding Section 1.B.1. above, the Company may assign or contract out revenue flying for a period not in excess of ninety (90) days per occurrence if (a) such conduct is necessary to accomplish the needs of the service of the Company, and (b) the Company does not have sufficient aircraft or pilots to perform the revenue flying assigned or contracted out, and (c) no Company pilot is furloughed as a result of such contracting out of revenue flying. The Company shall provide notice to the Association prior to entering any agreement to assign or contract out revenue flying
B. Scope
2. Notwithstanding Section 1.B.1. above, the Company may assign or contract out revenue flying for a period not in excess of ninety (90) days per occurrence if (a) such conduct is necessary to accomplish the needs of the service of the Company, and (b) the Company does not have sufficient aircraft or pilots to perform the revenue flying assigned or contracted out, and (c) no Company pilot is furloughed as a result of such contracting out of revenue flying. The Company shall provide notice to the Association prior to entering any agreement to assign or contract out revenue flying
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
