|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 468693)
Relevent Delta contract section
b. the pilot seniority lists of the Company and the acquired airline will be integrated pursuant to Association merger policy if both groups are represented by the Association, or if the airmen of the acquired airline are not represented by the Association, then pursuant to a method to be determined by the Delta MEC. 1) However, in either case, the integrated seniority list produced by the Association, including any attendant conditions and restrictions, will be subject to the approval of the Company, and will be submitted to the Company for approval within twelve months of the date the Company or any affiliate acquired control of the acquired airline. The Company will provide the Association with its decision as to approval or disapproval (including its reasons for disapproval) of the integrated seniority list produced by the Association within two months following receipt of the integrated seniority list. If the Association does not without good cause produce and present an integrated seniority list to the Company for approval within twelve months of the date the Company or any affiliate acquired control of the acquired airline, the pilot and airman seniority lists of the Company and the acquired airline, respectively, will be integrated pursuant to the arbitration procedures set forth in Section 1 D. 8. b. 2). 2) If the Company rejects the list produced by the Added note, USAIR management had to except the list produced in their binding arbitration which they did. Sorry guys, this section was overridden with new language from the JPWA, TFA and SLI letter. DAL has no right to reject the list unless it's a bump and flush, which will never happen. Try again... Nu |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 469123)
Heyas,
Sorry guys, this section was overridden with new language from the JPWA, TFA and SLI letter. DAL has no right to reject the list unless it's a bump and flush, which will never happen. Try again... Nu Carl |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 469123)
Try again...
Nu |
Have any of you all heard of a new Boston pilot base flying 757ER (2-man crew only) to european destinations?
Or, a 75/76 in CVG going ER? -Fatty |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 469248)
Have any of you all heard of a new Boston pilot base flying 757ER (2-man crew only) to european destinations?
Or, a 75/76 in CVG going ER? -Fatty I will see if I can find the language in the new contract that would invalidate the text I posted. I don't have a copy of the new contract to research but will find one. I don't believe there was any changes in LOA 10 in that section so it would have to be in the joint contract. |
Nothing in the Joint contract amends the sections I posted. There may be something in the SLI agreement however you would expect there would have been a amendment in the joint contract since quite a bit of the scope section was changed. I will see if I can find the SLI agreement later.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 469269)
I spoke with crew resources 3 days ago about the coming bid. It is still planned for the first half of Oct. It will be for the most part a 777 bid however there will be backfill. I asked about new bases. The CVG rumor is just that a rumor. He said there has never been any consideration on their part to opening a base. There is simply no need for it. The flying is covered at almost no credit by the ATL and JFK basis. In the Winter CVG only has 3 international flights and 5 in the summer. Same with Boston. There would be no need and they would get killed on reserve coverage. It can all be covered out of JFK via 6 day trips with zero credit.
I will see if I can find the language in the new contract that would invalidate the text I posted. I don't have a copy of the new contract to research but will find one. I don't believe there was any changes in LOA 10 in that section so it would have to be in the joint contract. |
What business case could there be for a ER base in CVG? The flying is easily covered as mentioned by ATL and JFK. A small category like that would be very inefficient. My source was Randy in crew resources. The said he has been getting tons of phone calls about a ER base in CVG and can't figure out where the rumors are coming from but its never been under consideration.
|
The way it was explained to me (all errors are mine), since we currently have 5 international departures a day from CVG (dropping to 3 soon) using ATL and NYC crews if one of them turns back, they run out of crew day and without the ability to get a crew together quickly, they lose the flight. If that happens more than 4-6 times in a 18 month period they offset the cost of the training cost of about 1.2M$. I think Terry said it had happened about 5 times in the past 18 months or so.
The big fear was about moves since the entire category would be displaced. There is a discussion in the latest version of Pireps. |
I fly those flights often. I am sure now and then there is a turnback however in general a flight with any problem that would require a turnback is sent to JFK where it can be fixed and recrewed easily or a equipment swap done. If it were something that required getting the aircraft on the ground ASAP unless it was right after takeoff you would not go back anyway and if you did there are no spare aircraft in CVG. There are lots of places to land in a emergency. Most turnbacks are minor etops issues and again those flights are sent to JFK if they are airborne. With DTW becomine a Delta hub I would be very surprised if long term we even keep international flights in CVG. The traffic is almost all connecting traffic. It would make more sense to route the traffic through DTW where you also have more O&D traffic.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands