Fair point -

To the 9E pilots, this is not signed yet. There is no TA, and it is far from the coming MEMRAT. Keep the champagne on ice, and your PFA lanyard around your neck. Don’t forget to call your reps.

To the DALPA pilots, we didn’t tie this to your bottom end scope and I don’t know a single 9E pilot that wants to see 35 more RJs flying in the DCI network. Delta did, don’t pin these 35 RJs on us. It’s on Delta, 9EALPA played the cards we were dealt and we expect nothing less from DALPA.

 

Not everyone wants to go to delta that works at 9e. 9E is a great company to work for. Definitely leads the regionals in multiple categories. Maybe that's why most come here. Not to get to delta. Now with that said I would bet at least 50% don't have delta as their number 1. But also saying they wouldn't say no to dal either.

Jesus...this was supposed to go to Jackson thunder post about 80%

 

it's getting mad man... I've never seen so many new names in our boards before.

 

Many people here have been saying they do not want a flow for a long time. They have been saying that is not an important issue for them. Many people here that want a flow have not been listening. Now that flow looks more possible, those who do not want to work for Delta or perhaps do not want to get vaccinated or whatever are speaking louder...there is nothing new going on here.

 

this is what I've been saying like forever. It'sv frustrating people are not getting this

 

Time to think like a lawyer and a judge, not a pilot.

from your LOA, that DALPA agreed to:

In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 47. e. will be reduced by 35

Now, I’m not saying who will win this battle, but that little phrase slipped into this agreement makes DALPAs case quite a bit harder to argue. The best scenario is for DALPA to negotiate a deal before this goes to arbitration and get something as good as possible out of it. We all know you don’t want the 35rjs (back), but this isn’t anything “new” for scope. It’s not 35 MORE rjs, it’s 35 back.

Also, as many others have said, 9E pilots aren’t the enemy here. We didn’t tie this to scope at all. In fact, nothing in our agreement mentions scope. That is between DL and DALPA. DL simply wants those planes back. If DALPA had a better solution for DL that accomplishes them getting the RJs, DL would kick out flow to the curb and take a different deal. But DL sees this as the way to get the 35 flying again fastest. Don’t be mad at 9E.

 

Minimum a decade of worst reserve rules in the industry, sign that steamer Simple Simon

 

Yeah, I’ll be interested to see how dalpa argues this before an arbitrator. That doesn’t even seem like vague language. I’m am definitely not a lawyer, however.

 

They’ll argue it’s not a living document, the option was a one time decision and DAL chose to park the planes.

It’s very clear that DAL could have done what they are doing now, but they didn’t. Also unlikely 9E would have approved a 90% flush last year.

DALPA will show DAL only acted when the wind blew their own direction.

Also I don’t think an arbitrator will make a decision that adds or takes away value from Deltas PWA.

They don’t hand out slam-dunks to pilots, mostly because mgmt knows how far they can push something before they loose big.

This will end when DALPA negotiates LOA 9 out of the PWA all together, DAL is making this move to put a price cap on that negotiation.

 

Agreed. First and foremost, ****on 9E's side this has nothing to do with the 35 RJ'********. I'm pretty sure there will be no wording in regards to the 35 RJ's in the agreement. In regards to the flow up and down, Delta can argue they can hire whomever they want into Delta or Endeavor. I don't see how an arbitrator could void the agreement of a flow up/down- DALPA doesn't have a say in who gets hired into Delta or Endeavor. A furloughed Delta pilot obviously wouldn't *have* to flow down to Endeavor.

There is a provision that says that if Compass flow rights ceases to exist, Delta, DALPA, Compass have to meet to discuss "whether continuation or modification of [the] LOA would be appropriate". I think Delta will just say no continuation or modification is needed. Taking this literally, they can satisfy this just by having a meeting and doing nothing.

You hit the nail on the head with regards to thinking like a lawyer. If you google "arbitration guide contract interpretation", there are some great guides that show some insight how arbitration works in regards to contract interpretation.

Essentially, what I get from reading the arbitration guides is the first thing that needs to be established is if a provision is ambiguous or not. If it is *not* ambiguous- the provision is to be interpreted literally. If it *is* ambiguous (in the context of the entire contract/situation), that's where intent (arbitrator's notes, etc) comes into play and the intent of the provision becomes the controlling factor.

So again, I don't think the flow up/down has any bearing on the legal battle ahead - ***it is 100% about the 35 RJ'******* and the clause you referenced: "In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 47. e. will be reduced by 35."

The first issue will be "is it ambiguous in the context of the contract/situation?" That's the question I don't know the answer to - I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know case studies that might give a clue. Delta will argue it is ambiguous in the context of the situation (covid, etc)- a type of ambiguity called "latent ambiguity". "Latent ambiguity exists when the language used is clear and intelligible so that it suggests one meaning but some extrinsic evidence creates a need for interpretation ".

If Delta can convince an arbitrator latent ambiguity exists, then the intent of the provision takes precedence (does "cease" to be available apply when there are no pilot furloughs? Is "cease" ambiguous in this context?). I think the intent was pretty clear- 35 RJ's in exchange for a flow-down. In that case, I think Delta would win. I would find it very hard to believe that Delta didn't have a team of lawyers in a big meeting about this before giving Endeavor the go-ahead to offer a flow to the MEC. Either Delta thinks they will win this, or it will be worth the consequences if they lose.

If DALPA can convince an arbitrator no reason for interpretation exists, that the situation does not warrant latent ambiguity, then the provision should be taken literally. In that case, I think DALPA wins (because the provision did cease to exist taken at face value) and the 35 RJ's go away and some repercussions (what that would be I don't know). What would this mean for the Endeavor flow up/down? I don't know, since I don't think the 35 RJs would be anywhere in 9E's agreement I don't know how that would relate. Since the flow down isn't mandatory, I don't see how that would relate either. Worst case, if an arbitrator voided the flow for reasons I can't understand- would Delta just say no to any contractual progression to 9E? That would be pretty bad.

To beat a dead horse, the 35 RJ's needs to be divorced from the flow- they are separate. Yes, Delta is doing this for the 35 RJ's, but the flow agreement is completely independent of the 35 RJ's. Delta will fly those planes because they think the flow satisfies the contract, but what Delta does with those aircraft has nothing to do with 9E or the flow agreement- what Delta chooses to do with the 35 RJ's is between Delta and DALPA, not Endeavor or the flow agreement.