Originally Posted by gloopy

And why does the Republic loophole not only exempt Repulic, but does so without limiting that exemption to what they currently do for us? It clearly paves the way for them to get C Series jets and as soon as our TA was released, their CEO proudly said he anticipated those C Series jets to be flown for DL under SkyTeam.

Originally Posted by gloopy

DL fired ACA for their insolence when they started Independance Air. DL was stuck with the D328 leases however. There are two conracts in play WRT DCI. The carriers themselves (very easy to break except maybe SkyWest due to insanely bad management at DL in BK) and the aircraft leases. The aircraft leases are much harder to get out of unless you trade them in on a 2:1 for 90 seaters, and then its quite easy.

We could trade them in on a 2:1 and fly them with *God forbid!* DL pilots and simply eat the much, much lower penalties for breaking DCI contracts, IAW those contracts in the first place.

And why does the Republic loophole not only exempt Repulic, but does so without limiting that exemption to what they currently do for us? It clearly paves the way for them to get C Series jets and as soon as our TA was released, their CEO proudly said he anticipated those C Series jets to be flown for DL under SkyTeam. That alone requires a NO vote until its fixed.

Originally Posted by ReasonableMan

Or better yet, a YES vote for all of the other improvements on the PWA with a LOA afterwards to fix that???

Originally Posted by slowplay

How?

You hang on management's every word...

Originally Posted by gloopy

No, but every word in the TA would allow exactly what the RAH CEO says he envisions. We need to lock out RAH C Series jets now or we will regret it. The "RAH exemption", if there's even going to be one, needs to be strictly limited to what they do now and nothing more.

Originally Posted by gloopy

But that was specifically addressed by the company in this TA. The company specifically wants a blank check with RAH. And immediately after the TA, the RAH CEO said he sees his C Series at SkyTeam. Before the TA, the CEO of RAH was talking doom and gloom about his future C Series.

The time to fix this is now. Why would the company fix it right after the TA that they specifically negotiated to allow it in the first place is passed? The company wants this and that's why its in there.

Originally Posted by Fly4hire

They cannot fly a C series under DCI no matter the holding company exemption. Even if configured for 76 seats they would exceed GW limits. See 1.B.46.f. MGTOW for a CS100 is 121K. RAH is only a member of Skyteam by association of their DCI affiliation with DAL.

They can fly a C series, but not for DAL.

Originally Posted by Rogue24

Bar, the idea may be revolutionary, but the result is less so. Ratios that with projections still allow mainline to act as an accumulator from 1.76-1 down to 1.59-1. In addition, the company has out language that is not tailored to this specific instance, and as a result is not specific enough for a domestic to domestic comparison.

What I saw in Art's letter; with him being involved in the process was, there was not enough quid for the pro quo. Not that the idea conceived was wrong.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

According to Slowplay our current ratio is 1.19-1. Given that this is true, even if we are the initial accumulator for a downsizing, under the TA, we will STILL be doing .37/hour MORE flying compared to DCI than under our current contract! (I think the end ratio is 1.56 not 1.59 hence the .37)

Or am I missing something?

Denny

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

The accumulator I speak of is after the ramp up when we are at 1.76-1. That is attributed to dci shrinking by 149 airframes and us going up by a net of about 40 to 760ish. The ratio looks better because DCI block is shrinking, not just due to mainline growth. It's a math problem with two variables.

When we get to 1.76-1 mainline can then shrink all the way to 1.59-1 before they would even have to consider shrinking DCI.