Originally Posted by
NuGuy
Heyas ACL,
We DO all hope that they get their single carrier status. What WAS in the contract is not really relevant.
In any event, a SC determination may or may not produce a problem for DAL with regards to section 1.
1) First we need the ALPA types to determine whether or not such a entity DOES violate section 1.
Nu
What ACL was trying to state is that this has already been done and that contractual language which would have applied was removed during concessionary negotiations.
This language was removed for two reasons:
(1) To increase competition among DCI carriers
- Increased competition resulted in lower costs among DCI carriers
- Savings from reduced feeder costs would result in more money for mainline bargaining
- Increased "bargaining credits" to be used to offset concessionary negotiations
Unintended results
- Since pilot costs are a controllable variable expense management attacked pilot wages and longevity at regional carriers
- Comair 5191 and Colgan 3407 had circumstances indicating career stresses were a contributing factor in both losses
- Regional losses were underwritten on Delta's ledger
- Expanded outsourced flying has resulted in fines from the DOT, lowered customer service rankings and spill over to competitors
- The hoped for reductions in expense never materialized and the negotiated offsets disappeared in subsequent concessionary bargaining
(2) Reduce restrictions on ownership which might help facilitate the sale of wholly owned airlines
This was effective in making ASA, Comair and later Mesaba, Colgan and Compass marketable. SkyWest, Trans States and Republic all have aircraft on order (or in operation) which would have violated job protection provisions contained in our earlier pilot working agreements.
Just a reminder, Air Canada Jazz operates this ...
Not shabby for a "regional airline pilot" operation which was drawn outside mainline scope provisions ... .