Originally Posted by
Denny Crane
I do think it is a big deal. I don't see it as violating our contract unless someone can show me where. There is a difference.
Denny
Denny,
Here is ALPA's Counsel, Mr. Bill Roberts describing "Delta Flying" in his deposition:
Originally Posted by A is Bill Roberts's response to questions
Q So when you use the term Delta flying, you're referring to flying by Delta Airlines and by wholly owned carriers of Delta?
A Well, I think I'm referring to the flying that's done by or for Delta.
Q By or for Delta Airlines only?
A When you talked about Delta flying, it's flying that's done by or for Delta.
Q So is say Comair flying, flying that you would characterize as Delta flying?
A If it's flying, you know, under the Delta code then it's flying certainly for Delta.
Q Is flying for Delta what you consider Delta flying?
A I think in terms of the comfort it is. In terms of the scope clause, I think that is -- I believe that's how it's defined in the scope clause.
Q So is it your testimony, that the permission to affiliated or wholly owned carriers that appears in the Delta scope clause, is the method by which Comair for example is allowed to fly at all?
A Well, I think -- I think it's the method by which they can fly for Delta.
Mr. Robert's is pretty clear
then that he believes flying for Delta is Delta flying and is only permitted under the Delta pilot working agreement. There is no discussion of Comair (in this case) being able to subcontract within Delta's contract, as ALPA would not authorize ASA or Comair to do so back then.
Now, despite claims to the contrary, Pinnacle has an agreement which restricts Delta flying. Pinnacle's agreement literally supercedes ours by duration.
Ironically, my guess is Wychor studied and learned from JC Lawson, Bob Arnold and the early (pre litigation) RJDC playbook and used his position to actually pull off what JC Lawson and Bob Arnold were trying to accomplish; scope which bound Delta Air Lines. Be interesting to hear Duane Woerth's opinion on the change.