Originally Posted by
slowplay
Here is POS96 Section 1.B.11
11.“International Partner Flying” means flying performed by any Foreign Air Carrier (who is not an Affiliate) (i) under or utilizing a designator code, trade name, brand, logo, trademarks, service marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently or in the future utilized by the Company or any Affiliate and/or (ii) as described in (i) above on aircraft on which the Company or any Affiliate has purchased or reserved blocked space or blocked seats for sale or resale to customers of the Company or any Affiliate.
Here's the definition in the TA
42 38. “International partner flying” means flying performed by any foreign air carrier (which is
43 not a Company affiliate):
44 a. under or utilizing a designator code, trade name, brand, logo, trademarks, service
45 marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently or in the future utilized by the
46 Company or any Company affiliate, and/or
1-4
Section 1 – Scope
b. on aircraft on which the Company or any Company 1 affiliate has purchased or
2 reserved blocked space or blocked seats for sale or resale to customers of the
3 Company or any Company affiliate.
The new 1.E.9 proscribes the company from doing what they can do now without MEC Chairman approval.
1.9. Except as approved by the Delta MEC Chairman, or as otherwise provided by
Section
1 E., a carrier engaged in international partner flying will maintain a separate operating
and corporate identity from the Company including, but not limited to, name, trade name,
logo, livery, trademarks or service marks. The Delta MEC Chairman may, at his option, approve the use by a carrier engaged in international partner flying of a trade name, brand, logo, trademarks, service marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently or in the future utilized by the Company or any Company affiliate.
This is one of those double sided issues. It depends on how you read it. That mean's it's poorly drawn up because it's purpose is not clear.
From the MEC's point of view, this is stopping the Company from using their market images and trademarks without DALPA approval.
Looking at it another way, it allows the MEC Chairman unfettered authority to cut a deal with management with no oversight.
Who is correct? I don't really know. Perhaps DALPA's intent is sincere to prevent another alter ego carrier.
I wouldn't have a problem with this IF it were subject to MEC review and approval.