deleted......

Why would you remove it?

Ok, so I'm missing a page here.

The original NWA LOA said that the cancelation of the flow down to compass would lower the cap on 71-76 jets to 55. Where is the document that revized it to 85 after the merger?

A Fait Acompli
 

Richard Anderson's first public comments say a lot:This statement:
(1) Explains why the sale price had little apparent relation to the value, or future revenue stream, represented to the regional holding companies.
(2) Explains the sale is an important part of our push to eliminate debt. One quick and easy way is to move balance sheet liabilities to another party
- This likely means the lessors and banks had to agree to the sale and were in the loop
- One reason to fix our balance sheet now is to obtain cheaper financing for fleet renewal
- Financial pressure is being used to justify outsourcing (which is my concern on the 100 seat jet too)
(3) This resonates with ALPA's long standing policy of encouraging the Company to avoid spending money on "Regional Jets." From a "unity" perspective this push is significant because it results in the further dilution of flying. It is the reason why a wholly owned airline's growth stagnates and reverses ( as seen at ASA and Comair ) and the reason flying is redirected outside the Company ... often times, outside of ALPA's membership. Again, at Northwest wrote this blatantly into its contractual language. Consider the scope bullet points of the NWA Bridge Agreement and tell me this does not sound familiar.While talking about "brand scope" negotiators actively work to place flying outside the parent company to avoid spending money on airplanes & operations they don't like. In fact, many felt that profits from concessionary contracts were being funneled into RJ purchases and wanted the parent Companies out of the RJ business.

While current members of our MEC state shock and surprise by the sale the MEC has a pretty long track record of voting "not to study" the Compass divestiture and separating the representational structure to clean up labor issues in advance of a sale. Within the innermost circle, I would surmise progress was being made to facilitate this sale for years.

I doubt Delta management would have made such a move, knowing full well the labor implications, without agreement from ALPA. If anyone wants to bet a round of Sweetwater 420, I'm guessing ALPA will soon come out with a statement to the effect of "nothing to see here, move along ... ."

ACL65--

If the flow up is indeed canceled outright, I can't imagine our MEC would wish to leave the flow down in place. It is, however, contained within a signed, binding LOA. Canceling the LOA would require both the CPZ MEC and CPZ/TSH management to sign off on that. I can't imagine Delta would leave the fate of their 76 seat cap to the whims of TSH management; I assume that TSH NOT canceling that LOA was one of the conditions of the sale.

If you guys want to try to use this circumstance to take back some 71-76 seat flying I think the CPZ guys would be with you all the way, I'd rather see this flying go to mainline and be out of a job rather than work for Hulas. One way or another, I won't be at CPS long. If the flow indeed goes away, I'm applying everywhere.

Hey guys i don't know if it matters but the 36 EMB-175's operated by Compass had their max t/o weights increased to 89,000 lbs. Seems that I remember something about that having some meaning somewhere in one of the LOA's. Since I am away for a few days i dont have access to a contract or loa's until next week.

I'll agree with that. Having watched TSA suffer for years under Hulas I don't see myself having a very long stay. If the flow works great if it doesn't I'll be checking out for greener pastures. You DAL guys and gals look at the writing very closely and make sure everyone understands the outcomes bothways. Mangement obviously has something up their sleeves so be ready. However we are all expecting you all to do whatever is best for DAL pilots...in the end it will help us too.
I just hope that day comes sooner than later ;)

Simple, it is a copyrighted document of Delta Air Lines, Inc. All of that stuff is. Little writing at the bottom.

Last thing you want is someone to get nailed for posting copyrighted material without written approval.

How ambiguous is the word affiliate in the LOA? I wonder why they didn't use "wholly owned affiliate?"

I bet that this word and how it is used will be a hinge point in many of the arguments.