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.

2) If so, then THEY need to decide if they want to do anything about it

3) If they do decide what they want to do something about it, they need to decide what.

4) At any point, you can bet the company will disagree with ALPA's interpretation, and say "grieve it", which may lead to an ALPA cave-in on any number of levels.

5) Even if you get as far as a grievace settlement, lawsuit award or whatever, that leads to the removal of REP aircraft from the DAL property, no big deal, as the room in section 1 that is created by the removal of the REP jets will simply allow another carrier to step in with replacement jets, probably within days of the award.

So you see, given the past performance, a SC determination leading to aircraft removed from the property means nothing in the long run.

You could, of course, as as part of the grievance settlement to reduce the number of permitted airframes, but good luck with that. You couldn't get the MEC to buy off on that, let alone the company.

Nu