Originally Posted by Doug Madsen

Consider this your requested rebuttal. Nothing in the PWA currently prohibits it for international carriers. The only current language is with respect to DCI carriers needing to have the word "connection" added if they're gonna put "Delta" on the airplane.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

Actually, it is prohibited, for scope to be released, it has to be specifically spelled out as permitted flying. This TA allows the MEC chair to specifically permit Delta to do that, if he so chooses.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

Actually, it is prohibited, for scope to be released, it has to be specifically spelled out as permitted flying. This TA allows the MEC chair to specifically permit Delta to do that, if he so chooses.

Originally Posted by SAVdude

Help me out;
Having one person, the MEC Chairman, getting sole control in deciding what foreign airline can wear Delta colors and operate without Delta crews (if I'm reading that section of the TA correctly) troubles me greatly, especially after the spectacle of the PTC road show.
I have previously posted my concerns about section 1.E.9 possibly allowing outsourcing.
In response, someone pointed out that there is currently nothing in our current PWA preventing the company from doing so now. If that's the case, why isn't Delta doing it?
Section 1.E.2 of the current contract seems to indicate that the Company cannot outsource the Delta brand without the written consent of the full MEC. If the full MEC were presented with a proposal from The Company to acquire (in whole or in part) and operate another - foreign - carrier (SkyMark?), without integrating the other airline's seniority list - and using the Delta logo - I believe it wouldn't be an issue; the MEC would not allow it.
If I'm reading and interpreting the current PWA and proposed TA correctly (and I may not be doing so), then section 1.E.9 of the TA seems to erode protection from outsourcing - not enhance it - by removing the MEC in its entirety from the decision, except the MEC Chair.
Am I wrong in my interpretation?

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen

Please point to the language that proves that. It's not there. Our scope clause limits what Delta can do, but its limits with respect to foreign carriers must be specifically spelled out. If it's NOT, they can do whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

You have it exactly backwards Doug. I made the same mistake. After definitions, our Scope begins with 1.C.1:

C. Scope
1. Except as provided in Sections 1 D., E., O., and Q.1. 2.: All flying performed by or for the Company or any Company affiliate will be performed by pilots in accordance with the terms and conditions of this PWA.

Our scope defines that ALL flying belongs to Delta pilots...UNLESS a subsequent paragraph PERMITS the company to do otherwise.

This TA's new addition of the MEC chairman's power to sign off on use of Delta livery is a NEW PERMISSION that does not currently exist. This is a really big deal.

Carl

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen

Wrong again, Carl. Read your own highlighted words...

Originally Posted by SAVdude

Help me out;
Having one person, the MEC Chairman, getting sole control in deciding what foreign airline can wear Delta colors and operate without Delta crews (if I'm reading that section of the TA correctly) troubles me greatly, especially after the spectacle of the PTC road show.
I have previously posted my concerns about section 1.E.9 possibly allowing outsourcing.
In response, someone pointed out that there is currently nothing in our current PWA preventing the company from doing so now. If that's the case, why isn't Delta doing it?
Section 1.E.2 of the current contract seems to indicate that the Company cannot outsource the Delta brand without the written consent of the full MEC. If the full MEC were presented with a proposal from The Company to acquire (in whole or in part) and operate another - foreign - carrier (SkyMark?), without integrating the other airline's seniority list - and using the Delta logo - I believe it wouldn't be an issue; the MEC would not allow it.
If I'm reading and interpreting the current PWA and proposed TA correctly (and I may not be doing so), then section 1.E.9 of the TA seems to erode protection from outsourcing - not enhance it - by removing the MEC in its entirety from the decision, except the MEC Chair.
Am I wrong in my interpretation?

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen

Please point to the language that proves that. It's not there. Our scope clause limits what Delta can do, but its limits with respect to foreign carriers must be specifically spelled out. If it's NOT, they can do whatever they want.