I guess it depends on what your definition of "added to the mainline fleet" is?

now mainline is us, I think that's a fairly easy conclusion. fleet though is defined in Section 1A as: Fleet means aircraft in service, undergoing maintenance, and operational spares.

I guess they could say undergoing maintenance means they're added. to brightest lawyers ever wil agree.

 

The Company will maintain a minimum ratio of revenue block hours of Company flying on all narrowbody aircraft and all B-767-300 (non – ER) aircraft (MBH) to revenue block hours of flying in category A and C operations (DBH) under the following chart:
a. b.
Cell 1 states the maximum number of 76-seat aircraft engaged in category A or C operations as of July 1, 2012, and cells 2 through 8 show an increase in the number of such 76-seat aircraft (if added in accordance with Section 1 B. 46. f.), and
Cells 9 through 16 state the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH that the Company must maintain given the number of 76-seat aircraft in cells 2 through 8.
Number of 76-Seat Aircraft Engaged In Category A or C Operations
Min. Ratio of MBH to DBH
76 seat jets
in A or C Ops Min Ratio MBH to DBH
2. 154-163 10. 1.10
3. 164-173 11. 1.25
4. 174-183 12. 1.30
5. 184-193 13. 1.35
6. 194-203 14. 1.40
7. 204-213 15. 1.47
8. 214-223 16. 1.56
c. The Company’s compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH will be measured for the first time on July 1, 2014 and then measured again each succeeding July 1 thereafter, in each instance for the preceding 12 months on a weighted basis by the number of 76-seat aircraft in category A or C operations each month.
d. Beginning on July 1, 2013, and continuing on each succeeding January 1 and July 1 thereafter, the Company will provide to the Association a projection of scheduled MBH and DBH for the following six-month period commencing on such July 1 or January 1, as applicable.
e. The Company will only be excused from compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH:
if it was projected to be in compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH in both of the preceding six month projection periods (i.e., both the January 1 and July 1 projections of the preceding 12 months), or
in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such noncompliance.
f. In the event the Company is excused from compliance with the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH under Section 1 D. 9. e. 1), it must remedy its non-compliance by the following January 1 by achieving the minimum ratio of MBH to DBH as measured for the prior twelve months (i.e., January 1 of the then-current year to December 31 of the then-current year).

 

So to clarify, your FO rep told you that Delta is permitted to operate additional 76 seaters without having 717s first?

 

HUGE leap in logic. I think that the dough boys would have gone away had Caplinger had any integrity and stuck to the deadline he originally set. But he didn't. And he doesn't. It has nothing to you or any of the other followers. It is all about him, his integrity, and his motivations. None of which pass any kind of smell test. He is out for revenge.

 

Are we above 153 76 seat jets at this time? Last report I saw said no. 154 is where all of this language and the trigger of the 717's being on property kicks in. Taking delivery is not flying them. If there is an operational flight of the 154th 76 seat jet, report it. Code Share is monitoring this closely.

 

See what ACL wrote. Apparently no enforcement is possible prior to measurement on Jan 1...

9E obviously isn't taking delaying taking delivery of the aircraft, but they were planning on not flying the line with them until mid september, I'm assuming to coincide with the 717. Now with the 717 delayed, let's see what happens.

 

If a line dog has to report it, than I am not sure "Code Share's" and my definition of "close" are very much aligned.

 

But couldn't they say we have 5 B717s in the shop right now thus they're undergoing maintenance thus per the PWA definitions section they're in the fleet and we can operate 4 CRJ900s?

 

Well this could get interesting. It is one thing for the JV with a foreign carrier to be expected to be out of compliance at a future date, this is a whole different deali-o. Frankly, this would be inexcusable. I am waiting for official word however, but this is something that has no reason to wait until the official "date" in order to be prosecuted.

I would advise to do some of that proactive **** Mav.... before this becomes a Waterloo.

 

I believe the language said they must be in service. Hangar queens do not count. IF I remember correctly.