Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
“Control” for the purposes of Section 1, will exist by entity A over entity B, only if A,
whether directly or indirectly through the control of other entities:
a. owns securities that constitute and/or are exchangeable into, exercisable for or
convertible into more than:
1) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air
carrier) of B’s outstanding common stock, or if stock in addition to common stock
has voting power, then
2) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air
carrier) of the voting power of all outstanding securities of B entitled to vote
generally for the election of members of B’s Board of Directors or similar
governing body, or
b. has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all
of B’s air carrier operations, or
c. has the power or right to designate or provide all or substantially all of B’s officers, or
d. has the power or right to provide a majority of the following management services for capacity planning, financial planning, strategic planning, market planning,
marketing and sales, technical operations, flight operations, and human resources
activities, or
e. has the power or right to appoint or elect or prevent the appointment or election of a
majority of B’s Board of Directors, or other governing body having substantially the
powers and duties of a Board of Directors, or
f. has the power or right to appoint or elect or to prevent the appointment or election of
a minority of B’s Board of Directors or similar governing body, but only if such
minority has the power or right to appoint or remove B’s Chief Executive Officer, or
President, or Chief Operating Officer, or the majority membership of the Executive
Committee or similar committee on B’s Board of Directors, or the majority
membership of at least one-half of B’s Board committees.
whether directly or indirectly through the control of other entities:
a. owns securities that constitute and/or are exchangeable into, exercisable for or
convertible into more than:
1) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air
carrier) of B’s outstanding common stock, or if stock in addition to common stock
has voting power, then
2) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air
carrier) of the voting power of all outstanding securities of B entitled to vote
generally for the election of members of B’s Board of Directors or similar
governing body, or
b. has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all
of B’s air carrier operations, or
c. has the power or right to designate or provide all or substantially all of B’s officers, or
d. has the power or right to provide a majority of the following management services for capacity planning, financial planning, strategic planning, market planning,
marketing and sales, technical operations, flight operations, and human resources
activities, or
e. has the power or right to appoint or elect or prevent the appointment or election of a
majority of B’s Board of Directors, or other governing body having substantially the
powers and duties of a Board of Directors, or
f. has the power or right to appoint or elect or to prevent the appointment or election of
a minority of B’s Board of Directors or similar governing body, but only if such
minority has the power or right to appoint or remove B’s Chief Executive Officer, or
President, or Chief Operating Officer, or the majority membership of the Executive
Committee or similar committee on B’s Board of Directors, or the majority
membership of at least one-half of B’s Board committees.
first, like dirty said, we don't have an SLI with comair, asa, skywest, chq, etc.
second, sure when you buy a ticket on delta to nrt you may at some point fly on a dci carrier or the oversized dci carrier known as alaska, but that's all a part of the scope arrangement.
i don't see how this passes the test. The PWA defines an air carrier as: a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
I see both the Midwest flying on the E190s and the Frontier flying on E190s and A319s is in violation of 1.D.2.
RAH has has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all of the other carriers operations, that's control according to section 1. Their pilots are all on 1 list, how that's not operating in essence as a single carrier is beyond me.
All of this started when CHQ got caught by APA back in 03 or 04. APA needs to step back in and do something about it, for the sake of Delta pilots.
second, sure when you buy a ticket on delta to nrt you may at some point fly on a dci carrier or the oversized dci carrier known as alaska, but that's all a part of the scope arrangement.
i don't see how this passes the test. The PWA defines an air carrier as: a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
I see both the Midwest flying on the E190s and the Frontier flying on E190s and A319s is in violation of 1.D.2.
RAH has has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all of the other carriers operations, that's control according to section 1. Their pilots are all on 1 list, how that's not operating in essence as a single carrier is beyond me.
All of this started when CHQ got caught by APA back in 03 or 04. APA needs to step back in and do something about it, for the sake of Delta pilots.

As I have said, the old language would have taken care of it, but this language talks about operators (certificates) and not holding companies. Legalese if you will, but very important.
Like I said, file a personal or group grievance and see if your proof can change the current practice. Many of us looked long and hard at this, and wanted what you all want. Willing something to happen does not do much in the legal world.
So I guess there are two takeaways from this RAH situation:
1) Delta is funding it's competition and growth thereof and is not going to do anything about it which is not only questionable, but scary, and more importantly,
2) ALPA let the language out of the contract that would've held, without a doubt, RAH in contempt of our Section 1.
Thus, for all of the money we pay to the wizards of smart at DALPA and Herndon they couldn't see this coming and they're not going to do anything about it now. Shame.
Heck of a blueprint for every regional airline that knows fee for departure is ending.
Is this not being litigated because ALPA wants RAH? I wouldn't blame them, in time, could be a lot of money.
1) Delta is funding it's competition and growth thereof and is not going to do anything about it which is not only questionable, but scary, and more importantly,
2) ALPA let the language out of the contract that would've held, without a doubt, RAH in contempt of our Section 1.
Thus, for all of the money we pay to the wizards of smart at DALPA and Herndon they couldn't see this coming and they're not going to do anything about it now. Shame.
Heck of a blueprint for every regional airline that knows fee for departure is ending.
Is this not being litigated because ALPA wants RAH? I wouldn't blame them, in time, could be a lot of money.
I don't get your logic here. So what if someone goes after our feed? If our purchasing that entity would then result in a monopoly, the DOJ would be remiss if they then approved that. And then you go on to say that it would be a good reason to fight, yet in this very same post you castigate guys that wanted to fight the scope issue because we had zero chance of winning. What is ACL's definition of time to fight?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
So I guess there are two takeaways from this RAH situation:
1) Delta is funding it's competition and growth thereof and is not going to do anything about it which is not only questionable, but scary, and more importantly,
2) ALPA let the language out of the contract that would've held, without a doubt, RAH in contempt of our Section 1.
Thus, for all of the money we pay to the wizards of smart at DALPA and Herndon they couldn't see this coming and they're not going to do anything about it now. Shame.
Heck of a blueprint for every regional airline that knows fee for departure is ending.
Is this not being litigated because ALPA wants RAH? I wouldn't blame them, in time, could be a lot of money.
1) Delta is funding it's competition and growth thereof and is not going to do anything about it which is not only questionable, but scary, and more importantly,
2) ALPA let the language out of the contract that would've held, without a doubt, RAH in contempt of our Section 1.
Thus, for all of the money we pay to the wizards of smart at DALPA and Herndon they couldn't see this coming and they're not going to do anything about it now. Shame.
Heck of a blueprint for every regional airline that knows fee for departure is ending.
Is this not being litigated because ALPA wants RAH? I wouldn't blame them, in time, could be a lot of money.
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
I believe DAL owns 16% of either SA or RAH. Interesting, isn't it?
RJET has been operating that way for many years with no issue (grievance filed) from any DAL line pilots. Republic has been operating the E-190 for many moons without a peep. It is in the way the corporation is structured. After all it was structured this way to get around ours, UAUA's and LCC"s scope sections.
The is a such thing as negotiating and contracting in good faith. If any party to a contract purposely acts in a way that is counter to the understanding of the agreement, I would argue that that party is in breach. Period.
first, like dirty said, we don't have an SLI with comair, asa, skywest, chq, etc.
second, sure when you buy a ticket on delta to nrt you may at some point fly on a dci carrier or the oversized dci carrier known as alaska, but that's all a part of the scope arrangement.
i don't see how this passes the test. The PWA defines an air carrier as: a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
I see both the Midwest flying on the E190s and the Frontier flying on E190s and A319s is in violation of 1.D.2.
RAH has has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all of the other carriers operations, that's control according to section 1. Their pilots are all on 1 list, how that's not operating in essence as a single carrier is beyond me.
All of this started when CHQ got caught by APA back in 03 or 04. APA needs to step back in and do something about it, for the sake of Delta pilots.
second, sure when you buy a ticket on delta to nrt you may at some point fly on a dci carrier or the oversized dci carrier known as alaska, but that's all a part of the scope arrangement.
i don't see how this passes the test. The PWA defines an air carrier as: a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
I see both the Midwest flying on the E190s and the Frontier flying on E190s and A319s is in violation of 1.D.2.
RAH has has the power or right to manage or direct the management of all or substantially all of the other carriers operations, that's control according to section 1. Their pilots are all on 1 list, how that's not operating in essence as a single carrier is beyond me.
All of this started when CHQ got caught by APA back in 03 or 04. APA needs to step back in and do something about it, for the sake of Delta pilots.

I see it exactly the same. You have to use the definitions, not just the scope language.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




