It usually gets that way when you show up in the pool..


Cause... effect.

 

OK. Do our contracts completely preclude any DCI from doing their own scheduling or performing flying for any other competitor major? If that is the case, that would allay half of my concerns.

This is the other part of my concern. These "partnerships" go relatively smoothly when both sides grow, but when one side goes backward, loopholes are searched for.

This is exactly correct.

Careful with the cheap shots. No talk of DPA on my end here.

Carl

 

No, it was just us fighting to enforce every single period and paragraph of the language we had. Our management team constantly probed the document and attempted to exploit language "gray areas".

I don't know what you think you gain by using terms like "perverted badge of honor" when you discuss fNWA. It's so incredibly unprofessional and debasing.

Carl

 

I became intimately aware how a single word in a legal document can change everything during my divorce some years back.

This TA says the 76 seaters can come aboard when the company "...establishes a fleet..." What is the LEGAL definition of "establish"? I don't know (not a lawyer), but here' one I plucked from a regular dictionary: "set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis".

SET UP on a permanent basis. Not take delivery, not have on property, not operating. Setting up. So here's what I think this TA allows the company to do: announce the leasing of all 88 717s, thus "setting up" a new mainline fleet size. Then announce a buy order for every one of those 76 seaters, now allowed by the newly "established" mainline fleet size. All this to be followed by the parking plan for the -9s and (my guess) additional older aircraft the company doesn't want to keep but haven't told us yet. Does anyone really think the company wants to expand its narrowbody fleet some 70 airframes?

Once those 76ers are on order, they're here to stay. Rationalizing the RJ fleet size under the ratios won't come until sometime in 2014; our orders start trickling in in 2013. I personally don't believe this TA will trigger the left seat opportunities that some have touted. In fact, in terms of upgrade, I don't think it is a nail in the coffin - I think it is 70 nails in the coffin.

I don't trust the company to do right by us. This TA shows how little they value our contributions, and ALPA certainly seems OK with that notion. I have no idea if my scenario will come to fruition, but I hope no one is surprised if it does. One word - establish - appears to throw that door wide open.

 

See above.

Denny

 

They can fly for themselves or another code which is not a code share with DAL.

But for the DAL flights, Delta does the scheduling exclusively.

It gets funny during IROPS. When Delta got so busy with their own mess the DCI carriers would implode. Comair managed to have their whole airline time out a couple of times as did ASA. During critical IROPS crews were known to get "lost" for as long as two weeks. Of course this happened most frequently in the middle of winter when the DCI crew was someplace nice, like Mexico, with limited, or no, communications ability. You got to enjoy conversations like "Where are you?" "Do you have an airplane?" "Why didn't you call us for two weeks?" (eh' you sent out a memo not to call in during IROPS, we were just following Company guidance."

Of course then they would deadhead you home (why?) and back in the good old days the next crew would find major components of the airplane had been stolen while it sat on the ramp. There was a ACA J41 which got stripped so badly it never flew again. People strongly suspected an on field shop had used the airplane for "spares."

 

If you would lower your neurosis long enough to re-read:

Notice how the premise of his question referenced BOTH my pay rate AND a dc of 40,000? I don't get that dc. Senior fNWA guys don't get that because of a pre merger agreement to give that money to the junior fNWA guys to holster their retirements. That's why I said that I was a bad example to use for his question...as shown below:

Can we get back to the TA now, or do you need to keep bashing the object of your man crush?

Carl

 

The reason I used Independence Air as an example is because they violated our scope clause by trying to fly Delta code while also flying larger aircraft than were permitted by our scope clause. (Kinda like Frontier but not with the "different certificate" argument.) This was a clear violation of our scope clause. Our code was removed from IA and is one of the major reasons they went out of business...

I see the similarity in that, if Delta gets out of balance with the ratio, ALPA could force removal of DL code by management from DCI carriers to get back into compliance.

Denny

 

T, I am probably misunderstanding you here.
Our PWA is pretty specific about what jets DCI providers are permitted to operate. Section 1.D specifically discusses permitted aircraft types. If they fly under the DCI banner, they are bound by the permitted aircraft types limits.

For example that section prohibits Delta from contracting with JetBlue to operate EMB170s for DCI, while still running the JetBlue A320 and EMB190 operation.

Most majors have a similar clause in their Section 1.

That's why Chautauqua (now known as Republic, because it's easier to spell) started collecting different certificates early on as a workaround to the Scope clauses of the majors they served. While everyone is on the same seniority list, they operate jets under different 121 operating certificates to comply with the "air carrier" restrictions. while the jets were RJs, nobody really paid much attention to it and just shrugged their shoulders. Then "Republic" purchased Midwest and Frontier and many of us wrote our reps. The reply was pretty plain. While the "intent" of the language in the PWA was written to actually use the broad definition of 49 USC § 40102 (a) (2)
The reply from the DALPA council Bill Roberts was simple:
The TA goes a long way to fixing this situation by improving the language specifically addressing holding companies.

So yes, we have language in our PWA, that prohibits a DCI carrier from operating larger "non-permitted" aircraft.

Cheers
George

P.S.: Unfortunately the company must have pushed for an specific exemption for Republic (Chautauqua, Shuttle America) that exempts them from this improved language.

 

Great points all Denny. I never knew that it was Delta pilots that won that grievance and mandated that ruling on Independence Air. It may not be a perfect analogy, but a good legal precedent to have.

I would have no concern at all about us filing such a grievance against Delta regarding operations of a non-ALPA airline. But do you think our union would do that to an RJ airline that had ALPA pilots? Would DALPA be pressured to "look the other way" so as not to harm fellow ALPA pilots?

Carl