Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
From the most recent Council 74 update:
____________________________________________
Republic Air Holdings (RAH) Scope Issue
This is obviously a contentious issue for a majority of our pilots. During the MEC meeting, we had a very detailed briefing from our DALPA legal staff that explained the current scope language and how holding companies, such as RAH, fit into that language. A vigorous debate took place both in Delegate Committee and in plenary session. We accept the fact that RAH, as it is currently structured, does not violate the scope language in the PWA as currently written. But we also feel that we need to consider how we construct future language to protect the interests of Delta pilots.
Therefore, we amended our resolution to focus our attention on how we protect ourselves in the future. Also take a look at Resolution 11-95, which directs the MEC administration to do a financial analysis of flying done under the Delta brand.
I agree. Shuttle/CHQ meet our scope requirements because they are not a STS- but man the NMB did about everything they could to insinuate that they are.
I HOPE that "protect ourselves in the future" means changing the definition of air carrier to say holdings companies are automatically single transportation systems and therein overnight RAH would be in violation of our contract. Overnight AMR/AE might also be found to be STS, maybe not as they're not as intertwined as RAH.
Skywest/ASA/Coex would definitely be STS. And therein help SKW realize that if you pull an RAH we'll redlight you from this DCI gravy train so fast you won't even know you hit a trestle.