Interesting little dot to connect...
06-27-2015 | 06:21 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
Sailing, as I understand it, current language in our contract states the company may rebrand as Delta a foreign operation with the MEC's consent. The new TA changes that to MEC Chairman's consent. Since we know there is a split in the MEC (11-8) this change removes a potential obstacle to such a rebranding effort.
Please rebut me if I'm wrong. I'm doing this from memory in a hotel.
Please rebut me if I'm wrong. I'm doing this from memory in a hotel.
06-27-2015 | 06:24 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Sailing, as I understand it, current language in our contract states the company may rebrand as Delta a foreign operation with the MEC's consent. The new TA changes that to MEC Chairman's consent. Since we know there is a split in the MEC (11-8) this change removes a potential obstacle to such a rebranding effort.
Please rebut me if I'm wrong. I'm doing this from memory in a hotel.
Please rebut me if I'm wrong. I'm doing this from memory in a hotel.
06-27-2015 | 07:02 AM
#10
On Reserve
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: ATL 717 A
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?
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
