Hahaha, me too!


<-------Mesaba pilot

Bring them all over to mainline. Of course, if they did that what exactly did Pinnacle and Trans State just spend their money on?

Hmmm
 

Delta Management Meeting:

Q: How can we get rid of pilot furlough protection and make them think it's in their own best interest?

A: See above quote.

Brilliant! Isn't it?

Two points:

1) Furlough protection, in general, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

2) Current furlough protection is in our contract and doesn't appear to be effected by this. Now, I do understand the flow is what protected us against the post merger furlough. But, now that post merger manning has reached a point where we need to hire, I guess I'm missing your point.

Trust me, I'm for what best protects our junior guys and I trust guys like Bucking Bar and ACL to educate me on regional issues. So please, ask me questions vs imply I'm some sort of management stooge.

All the best,
Ferd

Ferd-
You are no management stooge. You are a visionary.
This is truly a "cake and eat it too" opportunity, just like you said.

I'm somewhat stunned that any Delta pilot would come on this board and argue against using our contractual right to reduce the 76 seat RJs. All this talk about the need for strong scope over the last few years and now people are gun shy about enforcing the scope we have? Its mind-boggling.
What the heck did they think scope was all about? Enforcing our contract is going to cause short term heartache for some Compass and Mesaba pilots. That's a given and perhaps regrettable. But it is in the long term best interests of this profession to recapture as much flying as possible back to the mainline pay scales.
I'm sure Splash and anyone else opposed to enforcing Section 1.B.40 are a tiny minority but I'm shocked there is even 1.

Ferd you are not dumb. Flows as Eagle has proven are problematic for many parties, but that does not mean we just give that protection away. The cost would be very high to do so. I agree, wait and see. Take a step back and see if they actually cancel the flows (do not flow) Overcome by events is what comes to mind. :D

they dont have to reduce the number of planes, they have to reduce the number of jets configured with 71-76 seats. This means they could pull some more coach seats and add a couple more 1st class rows and be legal. if they dropped the number of 76 seaters down to 85 all they'd have to do is reconfigure the others = no loss in regional jets, only seats.

I'm SHOCKED! - Pete Carrol

You might be right here, I guess, but this seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

Is this about scope, or is this about the XJ and CZ pilot's about to flow not being qualified in your eyes?

Both?

Super-
Are you sure?
Read that Exception 2 again. Then-
Riddle me this - what is the certificated max gross takeoff weight of those jets?
See what I'm driving at? Its seats AND weight. (Section 1.B.40.d)

F-90,

I am not replying to your post specifically, but I for one don't know what all the fuss is about. I will caveat my whole post with the fact that I went from the military directly to DAL and my regional airline knowledge is minimal. I am sure that I will be quickly and politely :rolleyes:corrected if something that I say is untrue. DAL is hiring, a lot of the new hires will be coming from the regional airlines one way or another - so I have no problem with guys flowing up - bring em on!

I am assuming of course that they all are fully qualified. What I mean here is that they meet all DAL new hire requirements, and I am not really talking about flying. I assume if you can successfully fly an RJ 4-6 legs a day you can fly a mainline aircraft 2-3 legs a day. I am talking 4 year college degree, pass the same BS tests we all went through etc. I am assume all the flow through guys and gals meet all these requirements - is this not true?

If however, we have a golden opportunity to reduce the number of large RJs on property we should do everything possible to accomplish that. I think this will benefit all pilots in the long run both mainline and regional. With that being said, what do you do with the guys already supposed to flow up? I think the right thing to do would be to honor the flow. These people all had the risk of DAL flowing down so it does not seem fair to cancel the flow just when they can flow up. If these two goals, honoring the flow for people already expecting to flow, and reducing RJs are opposing, then the Company and Union will have to figure something out.

Scoop

I'm not 100% sure of anything that has to do with the flow ;) I hope you're right though. I dont have access to the exception, do you have it? I dont remember reading anything about the weight aspect when it came to reducing the number of 76 seaters if flow was cancelled. i'd love to get a defined answer though.

Just when I received my flow thru letter dated 06/15/10. It even came in delta letterhead from Paul Repp hiring captain. The letter stated that this triggered my 45 day window that if I wanted to maintain my protected rights status to notify compass hr immediately. If I wanted to flow thru it was not likely until at least the aug. 16th class or most likely the classes in september. Wish I new a way to post that letter. Well we will see what next weeks negotiation in new orlens brings. Being sold to hulus makes me just feel dirty, similar to that one night in college........

I blame the nuts who voted for you.

I would strongly recommend you do not post that letter here. I will remove it.

Send it to your MEC, and DALPA.

Check all for the MEC to decide. I am sure this is going to be a very tense issue all over the Delta system. A lot is riding on it.

Read the trigger provisions, and read the provisions for blocking and pulling said seats out. Lots there.

Where is this fit in?

Thanks Check,

Always good to know I'm not as crazy as my wife thinks I am:D

That said, I've commuted with dozens of Compass and Mesaba guys over the years, back when I lived in DFW. They are first class, talented and hard working guys. I think that they will get hired here by the bushel full no matter what the agreements are. I can tell ya that every crew I jumpsat with wanted us to hold the line on scope so they could get moving on up. Well, here we go boys!:D (and girls)

Ok won't post the letter. The mec's have this letter, not mine, but the one sent out to the top 60 at Compass. The letter is not earth shattering same things that have been discussed regarding flow rights of compass (before the recent events). In trying to respect your wishes I we keep it off the message board...

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.

As Bar has pointed out even if they cancel the up flow the down flow may remain. If that is the case and with the language that is in the PWA and the LOA's Delta pilots are subject to some stiff language after they flow off the list.

DALPA has the obligation to protect Delta pilots, and a bad work environment at CPS due to a one way flow almost guarantees that there would be some that would have their Delta jobs effected.

That would get rid of 40% of the DCI jets right there - SkyWest and Chitaclic.

The NWA scope was a lot more clear
 

Compass could not have been sold for a long time under the NWA section 1 language. Had the company taken delivery of at least 10 77-110 seat airplanes, it implies that they were actively replacing the DC9 anyway (Compass IS the DC9 replacement). Too bad that part of NWA's section 1 didn't make it into the JPWA. Now Compass is not a category 1 participating feeder carrier; it's a category 2. By failing to transfer over the requirement for Compass to remain an affiliate, the door was left wide open for a sale.

Perhaps now there MIGHT be fewer seats at Compass for furloughed Delta pilots,while still complying with the flow provisions of NWA LOAs 2006-10 & 14)? I'm really asking: I don't know what they're up to, but they clearly do...

To me (not an attorney), transferring over NWA LOAs 2006-10 & 14 without any of the other supporting language (see below) would be like Trans States pilots getting the company to agree to the UPS contract, but without SCOPE. How long would that last? About as long as it would take to transfer all of the planes to another TSH wholly owned regional airline.

Parts of NWA LOA 2006-10:

"Participating Feeder Carrier" means a Domestic Air Carrier that is a Feeder Carrier (both as defined in Section 1 B.7.a. and Section 1 B.7.c.(1) of the Agreement) that has contracted with the Company to operate Qualifying Aircraft.

a. "Category 1 Participating Feeder Carrier" means a Participating Feeder Carrier that is an Affiliate of the Company.

b. "Category 2 Participating Feeder Carrier" means a Participating Feeder Carrier that is not an Affiliate of the Company and that operates Qualifying Aircraft that are owned, financed, leased, or sub-leased by the Company (not including the AVRO85 replacements at Mesaba Airlines).

c. "Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier" means a Participating Feeder Carrier that is not an Affiliate of the Company and that operates Qualifying Aircraft that are not owned, financed, leased or sub-leased by the Company.

Offers of Opportunity (Filling of Vacancies)
1. A Category 1 Participating Feeder Carrier shall make 100% of New Positions (Captain and First Officer) and 100% of Backfill Positions available to Eligible Furloughed Pilots.

2. A Category 2 Participating Feeder Carrier shall make 50% of New Positions (Captain and First Officer) and 100% of Backfill Positions available to Eligible Furloughed Pilots, subject to conditions and restrictions that provide for efficient and timely processing and hiring of such Eligible Furloughed Pilots.

3. The Company will provide enhanced opportunities for a laid off Company pilot to obtain pilot employment at a Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier. As part of the negotiation of a new ASA agreement, or to amend an existing ASA agreement with a Category 3 Participating Feeder Carrier, the Human Resources Departments of the Company and such Feeder Carrier will develop a mutually acceptable program that will serve to provide laid off Company pilots who meet all other pilot hiring criteria defined by such Feeder Carrier with "additional weighting" relative to other pilot candidates not already employed by such Feeder Carrier. Nothing in this program will guarantee that any laid off Company pilot will be hired ahead of other candidates who are not laid off Company pilots.

“Backfill Position” means a position (Captain or First Officer) on a Qualifying Aircraft at a Participating Feeder Carrier that becomes open when an Eligible Furloughed Pilot vacates that position.

“New Position” means a (Captain or First Officer) position on a Qualifying Aircraft that is created at a Category 1 or Category 2 Participating Feeder Carrier as a result of a Participating Feeder Carrier’s taking delivery of, or announcing firm delivery of, Qualifying Aircraft after the effective date of the ALPA Restructuring Agreement. The number of New Positions at a Participating Feeder Carrier shall be determined without regard to whether pilots employed by the Participating Feeder Carrier are furloughed or remain on furlough.


Some of the NWA Section 1 language that would have prohibited this sale:

B.7.c.(7)(d) Feeder Carrier Affiliate
The Company may establish a Feeder Carrier which is an Affiliate (as defined in Section 1 B.1) (Feeder Carrier Affiliate), and which operates 51–76 seat aircraft which carry the NW code designator, provided that such Feeder Carrier Affiliate operates in accordance with the following provisions of Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)1' through Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)8':

B.7.c.(7)(d)1'
The Feeder Carrier Affiliate operates only 50 seat aircraft (as defined in Section 1 B.7.c.(6)) and/or 51–76 seat aircraft for so long as it remains an Affiliate of the Company; and

B.7.c.(7)(d)2'
The Feeder Carrier Affiliate makes all pilot positions (Captain and First Officer, including check pilots) available to Company pilots in accordance with Letter of Agreement 2006-10 (the "Flow Agreement"), before filling any such pilot positions with new hire pilots; and

B.7.c.(7)(d)3'
The Feeder Carrier Affiliate recognizes ALPA as the representative of the pilots employed by the Feeder Carrier Affiliate; and

B.7.c.(7)(d)4'
The Feeder Carrier Affiliate enters into a collective bargaining agreement with ALPA in accordance with the provisions of Letter of Agreement 2006-07; and

B.7.c.(7)(d)5'
The Company or an Affiliate of the Company owns more than 50% of the Feeder Carrier Affiliate when it starts operating as a Feeder Carrier for the Company; and

B.7.c.(7)(d)6'
Except as provided in Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)7', the Company or an Affiliate of the Company controls the Feeder Carrier Affiliate, and the Company or an Affiliate retains more than 50% of ownership of the Feeder Carrier Affiliate, and

B.7.c.(7)(d)7'
If at least 10 77–110 seat aircraft have entered into active service at the Company the requirements of Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)6' shall no longer be effective, provided however that the carrier (the "Feeder Carrier Successor") may nevertheless continue to operate as a Feeder Carrier under this subparagraph B.7.c.(7)(d), provided (i) the Feeder Carrier Successor remains in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)2' and Letter of Agreement 2006-10 (the "Flow Agreement"), (ii) all pilots of the Feeder Carrier Affiliate have the right to transfer to the Feeder Carrier Successor, and (iii) the Feeder Carrier Successor is in compliance with the successorship provisions of the pilot collective bargaining agreement of the Feeder Carrier Affiliate. In the event that the foregoing requirements of this subparagraph B.7.c.(7)(d)7' are met, the 51–76 seat aircraft upper cap of Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(a) shall continue to apply to the Feeder Carrier Successor, and;

B.7.c.(7)(d)8'
In the event that (i) the requirements of Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)7' are not met, or (ii) the rights to pilot positions or flow rights set forth in Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(d)2' together with Letter of Agreement 2006-10 as they may apply to the Feeder Carrier Affiliate or Feeder Carrier Successor, are modified or terminated for any reason, other than through a written agreement between the Company and Association as representative of the Company’s pilots, the maximum number of 51–76 seat aircraft permitted by Section 1 B.7.c.(7)(a) shall be reduced to the lower cap (i.e. 55).

The above language did NOT find its way into the JPWA

Any idea why Delta doesn't pull pilots from Comair? ACL said in another thread that Comair's costs were equal to or above legacy. Take some senior guys off the Comair list and suddenly Comair's labor cost drops without having to give them more planes, more flying, or a fourth round of concessions.

I'll admit the top hundred are short and will stay put until 65 or the merciful embrace of death, whichever comes first. However, there are a lot of guys that chose Comair as a career but after all the kicks to the sac in the past 8 years, most are ready to go anywhere at the drop of a hat. Most have 4 year degrees and over 10,000 TPIC, if that helps.

Is it because Anderson hates Comair pilots as individuals, or because DALPA hates all Comair pilots as a whole?

The first and most important point is the DALPA does not hire pilot or maintain the seniority list. Both are company functions. The company can hire all the Comair pilots they would like. Its not up to DALPA.
Second you should do a little research on the RJDC and the infamous letter written to the Delta pilots by the Comair MEC chairman. There once was very strong support by the Delta pilots to work on a single seniority list. They could have attempted to negotiate something with management. It might have been a impossible sell to management and as mentioned they control the list and hiring however the support was there until the RJDC seniority grab attempt.
To this day I don't think many Comair pilots understand how badly they were hurt by the actions of their MEC and the RJDC not just for hiring at Delta but hiring at any major airline.

+1 What he said!

DAL pilots have a long memory on how they recall these events unfolding. Also, keeping ALPA happy by simply doing nothing with OH is quite simple for the company.

F-90, I just arbitrarily picked your post to reply to.
I haven't read all the posts(too many), so my apologies if I am presenting a hypothosis that has already been floated.
1. Selling both airlines reduces liability. Let Trans States and Pinnacle worry about liability.
2. It transfers a rather large training cost/footprint to someone else. If DAL hires a Compass Captain, they will have to train him, but it should be the same no matter whom they hire. However, Compass has to train two. First, a Captain upgrade to replace the one gone to DAL, and then a new hire to fill the F.O. position vacated by the newly upgraded Captain. If DAL really takes a large number of flow -up pilots, they have just dumped the lions share of training costs on someone else.
Obviously this is just my speculations and the true reasons may be much more complex, but mitigating the costs of the flow throughs may be part of it.

As previously stated by others, Comair pilots choosing CMR as a career was mentioned by JC in his infamous letter stating that CMR is a career airline and any DAL furloughee could resign from Delta to be a CMR pilot. And how many kicks to the sack did you take compared to DAL guys 2001-2005?

This is a classic case of what goes around, comes around. Perhaps the CMR pilots should have been more vocal when their illustrious leader drew his line in the sand. Funny, it didn't affect him, but it affects a whole lot of the CMR list now.

never mind ... bigger fish