I'll bite.
For me this issue is less about the RAH DCI flying and more about enforcing existing language in our contract.
Our contract is interesting in that
it specifies only Delta pilots can perform delta flying. Then there are subsections of Section 1 that open holes in the very strong scope clause we have. A hole for RJs, a hole for AFKLM, a hole for AS and so on.
It's in one of these subsections that we permit RJs, but try to keep it buttoned up by having language that restricts RJ operators from flying bigger equipment. The PWA authors didn't wan't Delta sending small jet flying to another airline if they also had bigger jets.
The slippery slope is the bad precedent we set when we permit certain sections of our contract to be bent or overridden or re-interpreted. Our contract already has enough bonafide holes in it. Not enforcing sections for any reason makes it even worse.
As for Alaska, I'm particularly unhappy about the Section 1 and the Alaska EMA. Unfortunately there is specific language in our contract that explicitly permits that operation. To get that flying back we would have to rewrite that section and that would probably come with the phrase "what are you willing to give up."
In regards to RAH, with the election for the IBT the conflict of interest for ALPA has been removed in regards to the Midwest pilots.
RAH has realized their issue and is trying to spin off Frontier 2 years after buying the operation.*
- The language is there.
- RAH is flying the Baby Airbus.
- A federal agency has findings to support it.
- Its our contract, lets make sure its followed.
If Delta needs that section written in a way to permit this type of operation, they can ask us what we would like them to "give up" in exchange. ;-)
Cheers
George