|
|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198139)
I realize you weren't around when AMR Eagle or Mesa (flying as USAirways Express) operated as DCI carriers, but here's some history. Both of those airlines were owned by companies that had other subsidiaries that operated non-permitted aircraft. None of those subsidiaries with non-permitted aircraft could carry Delta passengers, code or revenue. That's exactly the same with RAH and Frontier. No Delta passengers or revenue can fly on Frontier. As I pointed out in another thread, Delta used RAH operated DCI carriers to compete directly with Frontier. Bedford said his 50 seat DCI flying wasn't profitable, and DCI made Frontier less profitable. Sucks to be Bedford.
Now Bedford's in a circumstance where he can't dump Frontier and he has large debt payments due. What's his path out? What plans has Bedford successfully executed on since he started his branded strategy? Why would Delta (a founding SkyTeam and its largest member) allow Bedford to take money out of Delta's pockets by flying SkyTeam member code under the SkyTeam banner on its RAH's own branded operation? There's no logic to that position as I see it. Bedford certainly can't fly Delta or Atlantaic JV code with his branded carrier certificate using other than permitted aicraft under our current arrangements. What am I missing that is causing you concern? Carl |
If I recall correctly, Trans States ordered 100 Mitsubishi RJ's last year with nobody to operate them for. I wonder if this is in play here somehow. They have something like a 1800nm range too. Anyone know if these are still on order?
here's the link: http://www.mrj-japan.com/press_relea...ws_110201.html |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198158)
Not exactly. You are a master of taking words out of context, building strawmen and running in full tilt mode, Don Quixote.
Delta has other options. They are slower and have more risk. But Delta is doing a math problem. When the math doesn't work on this path, they move to another one.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198158)
I've copied this for posterity. I like it when you guarantee me things.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198158)
When is the renegotiation guarantee redeemable?
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198158)
And I'm sure the renegotiated deal (including time value) will be far better in all respects than this one, right?
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1198158)
You're going to put that in writing and have some personal accountability for that too...?:D
Carl |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1198125)
I will admit that I do not know what the policy is regarding negotiations and TA's, but I guess that I really don't understand the complaint that the negotiators reach a TA before MEC approval. Wouldn't that always be the case. At some point the negotiating committee has a deal that they think is finished and will then present it to the MEC for their approval. At some point both sides say that they are finished negotiating pending approval form their bosses (MEC/exec). What am I missing?
When you are below the direction in an area or out of the direction box from the Reps, I have always seen it as standard practice to go back to the bosses; the reps, and see if the TA can be signed, we need to keep talking, or absent an agreement with the new direction on acomprehensive package, a TA will not be reached. It falls along the words in the chairman's letter. The stuff about no sacrificing the product for expediency. Its also what I took out of many of their letters as their reasoning for voting no. The TA failed to reach the valuation of their direction or their pilots. Also if this is the case in DTW, where TT admits that their pilots asked for lower money and valuation, What does it say about other bases that voted yes on the deal? Did they follow the will of their pilots? Did they provide direction that matched the survey? Were they OK when the TA(product) came back below the acceptable level? Honest questions that need to be asked. No more no less. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1198167)
That's a great question, and here's the answer. If negotiations are on track to meet the MEC's direction, then there isn't necessarily a need to brief the MEC...althought it's always done anyway from my experience. But in THIS case, it was very clear to the negotiators that management was playing hardball and would not meet the directives of the MEC. At THAT point, it was incumbent upon the NC to ask for a meeting of the full MEC to discuss what should be done. Our DTW LEC chairman said quite clearly that was NOT done. The NC just shook hands on the TA, leaviing the heavy lifting to the full MEC after the handshake. It was an amateurish mistake...unless the MEC chairman knew it all along and WANTED to put the LEC members in a no-win situation.
Mr. O'Malley has some very hard questions to answer about how this process was handled. It's HIS administration. The buck stops with him. IMO, it was classic Lee Moak behavior and an epic fail on his part. Carl Thanks for the answer. One more question: After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question. Thanks, |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1198179)
Thanks for the answer. One more question:
After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question. Thanks, |
Seriously folks, ax yourself this question: If the company's intention was to give us a take it or leave it TA, then try to jam the bat up our a$$ by making each one worse if we say NO, why wouldn't they have waited to do that until 36 months from now? You'd get to show those idiot pilots who the real boss is, and save on any pay raises for 3 more years. Why would they do this?
The answer is so obvious. THEY can't wait 36 months. Now that we know from slowplay that the opportunity was for them to get out of our CURRENT contract so they can do something about the 50 seat RJ situation that is killilng them, who has the NEED to do this as quickly as possible? Thus who has the leverage? Please read the DTW LEC Chariman's letter where he clearly states that the timelines and deadlines were clearly artificial and set by the company. It all adds up to NEEDS for the company and LEVERAGE for us. I absolutely promise that if you vote YES on this, you'll feel like a Bernie Madoff victim in short order. Take it from an old fart, I've seen this movie before. Carl |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1198152)
With guys like you flying topcover, I have to add 6 more feet of re-inforced concrete to the roof.
Carl |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1198179)
Thanks for the answer. One more question:
After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question. Thanks, |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1198173)
But that's not the question now is it slowplay. The question is, does our TA allow it to happen? Whether it meets your "logic" test is immaterial. Your logic test didn't save us from the RAH holding company loophole in the first place now did it.
Carl Slow, its not a question of what they will do?, The question is; Can they do it? That is the question every lawyer asks; Can I get around this language legally? Assuming that they will do the right thing may lead us in to trouble at a later date. It goes along the lines of the DCI compliance out clause. Its not just force majure but anything out of their control. This pharase is not defined in section 2 either. Makes me scratch my head and wonder why it is so vague. I want a great contact, but it needs to be vetted line by line. We got nailed by section 1 language that was not well worded in the past, going forward it may effect our relationship with the company and investor commmunity. Where we need vague language we have defined language like the "proft/loss" definition, and where we need tighter language its vague. It falls under the dupe me once shame on you, dupe me twice shame on me phrase..... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:27 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands