Maybe not in so many words, but the tone is there. You'd have to be an idiot to miss it.

Just sayin'

 

Just haven't been used for a long time.

 

T,

I'm no expert, but even the most casual read of any fragmentation policy shows that you absolutely cannot do what you describe. Just look at ours. You really have to have TWO sets of circumstances to repeat SWA/AT: 1) poor fragmentation language at acquired carrier, 2) management takes a deliverate stand to screw the target group.

If Delta bought a carrier with no contract, then you would still need management to go along, play shell games and park them into a dying subsidiary, or they could, as Carl correctly pointed out earlier (but by picking the wrong example) still petition under McCaskill-Bond.

 

Very insightful. Thanks for keeping it above-board.

For whatever reason, this venue has been (a little) better than our forum. Why not build on that, rather than ensure we get to a handful of hostile guys snarling like dogs? If you like that kind of thing, there are always East v West discussions elsewhere on APC.

The lurker can figure out who is on the defensive because the facts don't back them up.

 

I moved a thread over on the SWA thread to near the top. It discusses two examples of scope violations by SWA management and how SWAPA handled it.

Carl

 

Never said it was a fast moving target Alfa, just that it's a moving one.

Carl

 

You're absolutley right, you said:

So does the merger policy changing TWICE in 22 years constitute "so many times"?

 

That is indeed what I'm saying.

The 1991 change to ALPA merger policy happened as a result of the Northwest purchase of Republic when Date of Hire was ALPA's preferred method. The NWA/REP list merged via straight date of hire. The arbitrator said he felt his hands were tied because ALPA merger policy clearly stated Date of Hire. So the Date of Hire list included a 20 year fence keeping NWA guys off the DC9 for 20 years, and keeping REP guys off a set number of widebodies for 20 years. ALPA changed merger policy after that at the request of both NWA and REP.

Fast forward to today where the United MEC successfully changed ALPA merger policy prior to the arbitration for their SLI with Continental. The arbitrator cited ALPA merger policy in the award, and it certainly appears that the change to ALPA merger policy prior to arbitration greatly advantaged the United pilots, and disadvantaged the Continental pilots.

This is why I call the ever changing ALPA merger policy a political football, and one that is difficult to plan your future over.

Carl

 

Uh, tsquare, that's completely incorrect. Fragmentation protections that are included in most every airline pilot contract specifically prohibits doing what you claim is "easily done." AirTran was the outlier because their scope section didn't include fragmentation protections.

What you claim is easily done is actually no longer possible.

Carl

 

Yes it can tsquare. Just because we major pilots have allowed it to happen doesn't mean it's not the best way to operationally run a worldwide airline where you control your own brand. There is no objective evidence to show outsourcing of your brand is the best way to run a worldwide airline.

Carl