That is why I think the sequence may be legally significant.

deleted ...........

Heyas F4H,

My guess is that they'll pull the seats out to fit under the 255 cap, rather than pull the lift entirely.

Throw in another row or two of first class, and call it done. It'd probably be almost revenue neutral at that point. Add in the more restrictive ASA where they can pull the plug for the new carriers for picking their noses, and then throw the DAL pilot group a bone by saying "we live by our agreements" with an LOA to permit the heavier aircraft, and they'll call it a "win" for both sides.

They will NOT park those jets. That I can almost guarantee you.

Nu

JB,

You are right on. Someone has been alluding to this with me, but I couldn't find the LOA's. DALPA will argue this and win. That's how contracts go. Battle of the forms. Contradictory language? The more recent language wins.

Check your pm's in a few.....

NewK;
All my lawyers said the same thing. ( all in casual conversation of course :rolleyes:)

Another things that is very important legally too is that these LOA's were brought over to the JPWA intact. As I understand it, there are no changes to them. They are referenced in the JPWA, but the actual LOA's came over unmodified. Quite important!

I agree. I'm not fully informed on the whole situation, but it seems as though this will probably boil down to them trying to get rid of the flow and saying they will comply with the agreement (by pulling out seats in a bunch of 70+ seaters). Or, them finding or creating an alternate flow program (maybe).

The first option leaves us without a flow. I don't even know how they can do the second.

I think if we were smart, we would "volunteer" to fly those 70 seaters (Maybe by giving a significant amount of Compass and Mesaba pilots seniority numbers) instead of trying to insist they park them all. Because, you are right, they are not going to park those airplanes.

Yes. They were specifically referenced in the back of the PWA in LOA #9 as LOA's from the former NWA CBA and said they would be brought over to "continue as part of the PWA."

Heyas NewK,

I think people underestimate the value of the flowdown as furlough prevention.

You're not only paying to train a DAL guy to fly a E175. You force a fully trained captain back to FO, and a fully trained FO out onto the street, wasting 2 full training events in addition to the one you use to get qualified.

Now multiply that by 20 a month.

Now work it in reverse when training starts back up.

You are causing a MAJOR logistical nightmare and training dollar sinkhole for the company..

And that's why it was so effective. A real financial incentive NOT to do it with real dollars attached to it.

Far more incentive than having to poke your on-staff labor attorney and telling him "we're going to furlough...come up with some force majure excuse and make it stick".

If I were a contract operator, no way...NO WAY would I want to be involved with a flow. It's a ticket to bankruptcy, and we've already seen what happened to Mesa.

Nu

NewK

I agree with you and Nu. I hate to see us lose the flow, but in the short run it's probably best. The reason I say this is we will no longer be flowing down to a wholly owned. I have no knowledge of the companies we sold to, I'll let Bar or ACL chime in, but it sure doesn't like any of us would want to work there.

We will NOT park airplanes in the current environment. So, that only leaves rearranging the chairs.

As I said in another thread, I sort of see this as a cake and eat it too opportunity. We get more DCI seats pulled out of the system so they are forced to pick up more lift on our end. The flow up becomes moot as we hire more Compass and Mesaba guys than would have flowed up anyway. As I said before, I'm sure there is a knight moving into position to take my queen but that's how I see this. But, I'm reading all sides because I'm also sure I don't see everything.

Ferd

Good point.

TYG