Fail. There is no reason this discussion needs to get into compare/contrast with another codeshare. I can only guess at Slow's intention in bringing up AE, but it strikes me as the first step in establishing the notion that if we have/had a codeshare that endures/endured, and if there is no difference with the RAH codeshare, then wouldn't precedent suggest the RAH agreement is also OK?

If nothing else, you're now set up to argue two different points with Slow.

I honestly don't know whether the RAH code violates our scope clause or not, but I'd like that case to be judged on its' own merits.

 

I think you are dead on...

 

jetBlue is Chuck Schumer's baby. He is practically a founder of that company. He got them their JFK slots. It was all about "low fare competition" in the NYC market. He won't allow that to end.
Plus, a liberal Democrat antitrust division under Eric Holder will never allow further concentration of market power at Kennedy. Not to mention that LaHood would also have some say in the matter on anti-trust grounds as well as transfer of the slots. He shot down the slot swap at LGA by imposing huge divestiture of slot requirements and would undoubtedly do the same thing if we try to buy jetBlue and their JFK operation. Probably give them to Southwest.

 

Of course Schumer is also aware that across the river, in someone else's state, a powerhouse is being created at a competing hub.

I think this is a little about low-fare competition, and a lot about Schumer's friends, and mostly about Schumer's continuing reelection.

I don't think we're buying JB, but I wouldn't bet on their independent status over time.

 

I agree, but slowplay's point is not without some merit.
There are concepts in the law known as "equitable estoppel" or "laches" or various others that make it much more difficult for a party to assert a legal position, whether in court or in a grievance proceeding, if they have allowed similar contract violations in the past and done nothing about it. Its similar to a statute of limitations. We have allowed this violation for so long that its too late to bring it up now since people have come to "rely" on ALPA not enforcing that section of our contract.

I don't think that would preclude a challenge to RAH since they just recently changed the situation with their purchase of Frontier and Midwest but its undoubtedly a point that they would bring up in defense.
The NMB ruling, when it comes out, that says RAH is a single carrier and their single seniority list, etc etc.. all are important differences from Eagle as well.

I think its worth a grievance. The MEC disagrees. They have their reasons.
We're still theoretically doing "constructive engagement". Playing nice, etc. etc.
And ALPA National won't support any scope battles for the usual reasons.

 

Thanks. I don't know what the MEC's position is, so I can't comment.

As for Slow's "point", it's funny that we're debating what he hasn't actually said.

Regardless of what he might or might not think, I think it's a fairly dumb game to use past mistakes with respect to scope to extrapolate to future actions. I just don't think it's worth travelling down that road. This is why I don't really care about the AE codeshare.

 

I took his comments about winning in NYC to mean we are finally getting serious about competing with JB (and to a lesser extent AMR and soon SWA's smaller but growing presence).

The time to buy JB was prior to the massive overlay first with Dash-8's and 50 seaters, and then with larger RJ's and mainlines. The anti-trust issues now due to our actions over the last few years would be immense. And even if aprooved, the slot divesture required to get the rubber stamp would amount to the single greatest act of government mandated charity to date (read: SWA windfall).

As for their A/C inventory, I doubt anything they have is locked in under any better terms than we could get, quickly, on the open market anyway WRT fleet refreshment. We could replace the 9's and as many MD's as we wanted with 320's very, very quickly, under equal or better terms, but the problem is debt and absorbing any airline with a bunch of new planes means inheriting their debt. If the 190 was so desirable we could get a fleet of those as well pretty quickly but again that costs short term and we look as if we want to avoid that. A merger would also cost big money. A fragmentation/partial asset sale OTOH would be far easier and cheaper and require a lot less (SWA) charity.

 

Same to me. I mean I have never had a problem with a DGS guy and the last one I had was really good, started flying props back in the 60s for a major now defunct airline and he was very informative. So I'm not saying push them out but as some retire slide more line pilots in.

it just seems to me, in my humble experience, that nothing made me a better pilot than teaching. doing something masks how well you know it, teaching puts everything you know out there and if you have any self worth you work hard to know what you're doing.

Cycle people in and out of the training center even if only trained to do a few events seems like it'd be worth it for the quality of the training and line flying. Hell, every other trip for all I care. 4-day trip, 3-days off, 4-day sims.

 

I think everything is always on the table and looked at over the GO, probably including buying Virgin America or Jetblue or RAH or oil refineries or 748s or 773s or 717s or cool cockpits in classics or turning the 744s into 744BCFs.

All that said, I don't see why JB would be a win. We want wins, JB is not a win imho UNLESS we know AMR is looking at JB, then hell yeah we're serious about JB... but only til the last second then we're going to scadattle. This company wants to be defeated when it comes to M&A's as long as our competitors overpay in glorious fashion, thus, alas... a win.

 

You knew immediately what he was actually saying.

slowplay is a skilled debater. He's wrong, but he's a skilled debater.

I however, am a master debater.