You Sir, are awarded a high quality gif pointing to your most excellent post. Enjoy it in good health.

You might want to choose a different example, as there was no Air Canada flying on Thomas Cook aircraft by Jazz.

Thomas Cook and that flying went away...

Your example isn't pertinent.

But Pinacle already signed off on a contract and LOA stating that their progression would be to the bottom of the list at Delta, how could they expect that to change during a merger? Career earnings and expectations, an RJ pilot doesn't have much of either to claim in an integration especially after they just contracted to be the lowest paid in the industry.

.02

I also heard Jazz lost that contract.

Sorry guys. Can't talk about all this union stuff. Cold beer is flowing and NHL Hockey is on!!!!!! :D :D

QUOTE=Pineapple Guy;1334137]How?.......<-- note the invisible dots! Thanks FTB.:D[/QUOTE]

Release #13.PCL
January 15, 2013
Pinnacle Airlines Pilots Vote to Ratify Restructuring Agreement
WASHINGTON – In recognition of the magnitude of the pilots’ concessions, the contract also includes a bridge agreement that provides a one-time longevity transition payment and guaranteed hiring for many Pinnacle pilots at Delta Air Lines. Pinnacle Airlines flies exclusively as a Delta Connection carrier and Delta will likely own Pinnacle as a result of having provided the financing that allowed Pinnacle to reorganize.
.
Pinnacle (9E) Update— The Pinnacle pilots approved their ―Bridge Agreement‖ Tuesday. This means Delta will aid the carrier’s emergence from bankruptcy and 9E may become a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines. The 9E ―Bridge Agreement‖ does not apply to Delta pilot flying nor does it create a ―flow up‖ program for 9E pilots. It does contain employment opportunities (―expedited process‖) and fleet changes compliant with permitted aircraft types of our PWA. It is not a ―flow‖ agreement. Delta’s objective hiring standards must be met and [B[no individual 9E pilot is guaranteed a position at Delta.[/B]The MEC finds the agreement complies with the PWA, ALPA Admin Manual, and ALPA Constitution and By Laws. We continue to study this and all evolving and emerging transactions
Pineapple,lets start with this-ALPA says guaranteed and DALPA says no guaranteed.

19 votes on the DALPA MEC. If these are dissenting votes, they record them. Our MEC Secratary could answer this question to its fullest though.

I suspect that conference call meetings have a loa vote and discussion prior to the vote only. I'm sure there is significant time for input etc on the agenda prior to that meeting as well. Also understand that if you demand that the MEC enforce the seven day waiting period from TA to MEC ratification, and make them have a physical meeting every time a loa happens that cannot be voted on at a quarterly meeting, you are committing to a very large MEC expense for them to meeting for half a day. Think of trip drops, hotel rooms and support expense. That could easily be over 100k. Isn't a free or low cost att conference call the preferred way to go where proxies are issued if one cannot make the call? No trip drops, no hotel rooms, and no support staff cost borne on the delta pilot.

Gloopy, and Bar you ever think:

From what I have been told from a different point of view:


The fine print in both of theses agreements is the DAL PWA still supersedes them. I have heard the argument wrt to these agreements, that though it is a direct relationship/agreement with Delta Air Lines, Inc, they are only guaranteeing their part of the "permitted flying" as defined under our PWA and if our PWA changes its at Delta's knowledge and concurrence of these documents they signed. Delta would be dutifully bound to our PWA and its new limits. They signed it. What many say is neither of these direct DCI agreements bind Delta to flying other than what is currently permitted and if that changes their agreements are subject to the change. (Permitted flying changes these agreements change)The end cap statement is it does not change "permitted flying" to "excess bargaining" and ultimately not scopeable by another carrier(this will still hold true with all other permitted flying in Section1 as well), meaning we are free to recapture and define permitted flying it at our desire.

Talk to your reps and get their take on what they know. What I posted above is what I am hearing as the answer to your concerns.

This is a far cry from SD's sales job on possible hiring in 2012 if we signed the TA:

Maybe, but I just don't trust the process, the "federal merger law" and the inevitable lawsuit fallout enough to risk putting our seniority numbers on the line for no real gain. Even the "unity" potential here is eliminated as soon as PCL pilots all become DAL pilots because at that point, management still has the same number of RJ's and large RJ's to outsource.

If a prenup was absolutely iron clad and lawsuit proof, and a 100% staple, and the total number of allowable outsourced airframes was decreased in proportion to the number of PCL pilots coming over, then I could see it. But I really doubt that will happen or even be pursued by either party.