On DeltaNet: (although acquiring Hawaiin wouldn't surprise me)

Delta TechOps in MSP works on Hawaiian Airlines Airbus A330s
October 19, 2011

The Delta TechOps team in Minneapolis/St. Paul will be performing maintenance checks on two of Hawaiian Airlines’ Airbus 330-200 aircraft during the coming weeks as part of Delta’s maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) agreement with the airline.

The 1C checks typically are completed at 18-month intervals. These maintenance visits consist of comprehensive scheduled inspections and routine maintenance tasks during a seven-day period.

“Over the years, we’ve developed a strong partnership with Hawaiian because of the skills and professionalism of the men and women in Technical Operations,” said Tony Charaf, president-Delta TechOps. “This particular agreement is the direct result of the MSP team’s efforts to grow our MRO business. I’m so proud of the outstanding job they’ve done to expand our MRO capabilities to the A330 fleet and by working so well with our launch customer, Hawaiian.”

In 2009, Delta TechOps signed a comprehensive maintenance agreement with Hawaiian on their A330 fleet, which included line maintenance, component maintenance services, inventory provisioning and support, maintenance planning and scheduling, engineering support, contractor management and other technical services. Delta also supports the Hawaiian 767 fleet with component, engine and line maintenance services.

Maybe SWA is turning into a legacy. Our passengers let him live:cool:

Our Delta dudes in HNL, work on the A330 too. Contractually.

TEN

I've just always gone out to baggage claim lower level to get on the Delta bus. I'm pretty sure it runs every 15 minutes.

FTB,

That might work, but I think the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling against GE not because their offer was unreasonable, but because they refused to negotiate about it or even consider counter-offers. That was seen as an assault on the collective bargaining process, even if the opening offer was fair and generous. My interpretation could be wrong, of course.

I could see that.

I guess you could take this tact:

1) Restoration no change in scope, or

2) SWA/FEDEX parity plus 100% scope reduction to have SWA/FEDEX scope parity. Complete parity, as in the contract dropped on the desk and "I want that..."
3) Either 1 or 2 or no future mergers.

Aside from the legalities, I think it would be unwise to try and get around the whole mediation dance with the NMB. We have to play their game. In a very real sense, they are the ones we are really negotiating with.

The NMB has essentially become the dictator of airline labor contracts.
Its the govt that sets the wages and working conditions in this industry, not labor or management.
Its just as important (if not more important) to convince the mediator and the Board that our position is fair, reasonable and affordable as it is management.
If its the Board's opinion that you haven't prepared or are asking for too much or you don't have the proper attitude then you just get "parked". (ala APA)

That's ALPA's advantage (at least theoretically). We've invested mega-millions of dues dollars setting up all the political and economic infrastructure that is necessary these days to present a case to the NMB. We've been laying the groundwork for a long time. Hopefully it will pay off.

Self-help is an illusion unless the govt approves. And they rarely do.
Think about it. DALPA can't threaten a strike, only the NMB can.

No matter how unified or militant we are, we're not getting the contract we want unless the NMB thinks we should have it. Management's thoughts on the matter are almost secondary.

How did Spirit get to self-help?

I didn't follow their plight until they struck.

FTB,

Yes, there are several ways you could structure your opening offer, but all of them should leave you some room to "bargain down" to what you absolutely must obtain. Openers (from both sides) that I have seen usually tried for an extreme amount of bargaining room, causing gales of laughter when they appeared on bulletin boards. Absurd "wish lists" were so traditional that nobody took them seriously, and then real negotiations could begin. :rolleyes:

All we are concerned with WRT SWA are their per pilot W-2's and average days off for small narrowbody flying and up from there, plus reasonable premiums to account for our higher per pilot revenue. To any extent that their block hour costs are lower, that is a function of management not us. We are cheap and already very productive. Any remaining gaps in productivity come from our 9ish different fleet types, which is a management choice. We shouldn't have to pay for that choice come contract time, especially since it helps net the company the significant per pilot revenue premiums in the first place (although we could benefit with at least a little more fleet simplification...especially the many different types of costly and logistically non-integrated outsourcing).

As for the block hour cost differential, we can apply not only that adjusted 50 metric, but again, reasonable premiums above and beyond that to account for our per pilot revenue...

...and then there's scope. How much bargaining credits would our management give to SWA if they were running things over there to get 50% domestic block hour outsourcing, a massive domestic 737 code share at a growing airline while we stagnate beacause of it and significant company friendly JV relief?

SWA or SWA plus includes 100% scope recapture. Any outsourcing that is left come contract time, even if its only 100 fifty seat RJ's and some JV seat kilometer splitting, is an additional premium over and above SWA by definition.

My goals are higher than SWA as well, but SWA parity plus reasonabe premums including scope will help us get there with the NMB involved far better than righteous cries for concepts of restoration, Caddilacs with a month's pay or hard nosed saber rattling openers like AA.