|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223488)
Actually, it is and thanks for the correction. I was looking at the language as a stand alone, not in reference to what our fleet is or isnt, and those 717 would be SNB's that are "new" to us.
It being clear as mud is my concern. Probably not an issue, but one would never know.
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1223552)
That is what I thought at first also, but there are NC notes to go with it and I reiterated the question to make sure.
Clear as mud for us, and clear as mud for lawyers are very different situations. Ever want to have an attorney look at a Vol. 1 and see if he understands it?:eek: But it's a moot point if they get all of the 76-seaters they're allowed through the FL B717s and probably at the production rate Bombardier is willing to put out. Now, as far as I see once we are all one happy family then I don't see anything that stops them from being counted in the ratio so they'll more than beat the 1.56 ratio requirement. Which provides the Company the flexibility they'll need moving forward. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1223461)
There doesn't appear to be any penalty for management if they don't comply with the ratios or the parking of 50 seaters. While management is required to have DCI stop flying those jets, if DCI claims financial hardship over that decision and says no, then Delta is released from that requirement.
There is no penalty delineated in the PWA. That's not to mean one would not be assessed by an arbitrator. Financial hardship and the economy are both specifically prohibited. (The term “circumstance overwhich the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current operations.) Our agreement is not with DCI, it's with Delta Air Lines. If a DCI carrier is experiencing financial hardship, it's not our problem. Delta is NOT released from that requirement to maintain the ratio. What section 1 should have said is that any pilot or aircraft operating in violation to this scope agreement immediately falls under the terms of this Delta CBA, and will be added to the bottom of the Delta SL. I know you want to get to mainline but the only influence (small that it is) we have is with Delta Air Lines. Not with any DCI carriers. There is absolutely no way what you suggest could be negotiated and enforced even if it was negotiated. We would be binding a third party who is not a signatore of the agreement. Denny |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1223568)
I would think we could just rely on 1.B.43 and 1.B.16 alone and just say until SOC none of HAL's aircraft belong to the Company and therefore don't count.
Agree, that's probably what would happen. But it's a moot point if they get all of the 76-seaters they're allowed through the FL B717s and probably at the production rate Bombardier is willing to put out. Now, as far as I see once we are all one happy family then I don't see anything that stops them from being counted in the ratio so they'll more than beat the 1.56 ratio requirement. Which provides the Company the flexibility they'll need moving forward. If we did merge with HA, we would need to negotiate a JCBA before we are one big happy family. I'm betting the ratio would be addressed in the negotiation and it would at least be a wash if not better. Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1223583)
See above,
Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1223589)
See Above.
Denny http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads...e-seinfeld.jpg But notice a jump from 1.56 to 1.9 is not growth for PMDAL as we add PMHAL. DAL and HAL? That will be entertaining. Anyways, what we reluctantly are forced to do is give up on growing back to where we were at the merger in 08 and at least secure the hull size if we merge with HAL. Put that number in writing or something outsourced gets parked. If we merge with Alaska, shoot me. Sounds like that's just inviting the merge, shrink, rinse, repeat. It won't be good for anyone. But at least SEA will be a hub for you Denny? :o |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1223612)
But notice a jump from 1.56 to 1.9 is not growth for PMDAL as we add PMHAL. DAL and HAL? That will be entertaining.
BTW, no more naked George.... just had to edit that out!:eek: |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223564)
If there are NC notes that further protect us with the ambiguity, I am quite pleased.
Sent a question about that away the second day the TA came out and never heard back. I posted my concern on here, and look how quick you were able to get it. :D |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1223633)
In my best Jersey accent: "I knows some people ya' know, make a few calls and badda-bing":D
What can I say I love well written easy to find language; one place right place :eek: I'll give a few or the negotiators a call after the holiday. Those notes are key. Now if we would just video tape interpretation. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223640)
I would love to see the negotiator notes on everything. Probably would produce about 500 pages of questions but would clear up some too.
What can I say I love well written easy to find language; one place right place :eek: I'll give a few or the negotiators a call after the holiday. Those notes are key. Now if we would just video tape interpretation. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1223648)
It's Delta Air Lines philosophy.... Need we say more?
As for one place, well, air watch is a great idea but I do not like the end user agreeme that we actually agree too. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands