I don't want to be the CEO. The CEO is an at will employee of the BOD, although to be fair in the industry they generally do get amazing parachutes regardless of the circumstances of their departures. Pilots at DL (and UAL and many other airlines) have contracts that bind the airline (and its code) to them far more securely than any executive enjoys. If an airline wants to change their CEO they can do so on a daily basis. If DL, UAL, SWA, etc, even their CEO, wants to deploy the airline's code, he or she may only do so IAW their pilot's contract. Not every pilot group owns their code though. Some aren't even unionized at all, and a few others that are don't have adequate protections in their CBA to own and control it. Good thing DL and many others do.

I think we have figured out why some are having such a hard time with this concept. SW is used to being able to take parts of their "contract" and just ignoring them. But that is the thing with a true contract. It's legally binding and can be upheld in a court of law. And it can be taken to court by the representatives of the DL pilots. Some are just so used to SW doing whatever they want, they will get spun up over semantics like if the pilots own their code.

Gloopy is right.You're practicing sophistry or being deliberately obtuse. Then when you get called on it, you resort to ad hominems.

Admit it, Delta pilots do have a say in who flies what. At least agree that the lawyers and judges agree.

Not sure but could Skywest feed for example United with 90 seat ac and feed Delta with 50 seaters or is that against scope for Delta pilots?

It's against Delta scope, but if it did happen, it would certainly be decided in court what happens. The problem with agreements that put people out of work is they generally get shot down in court, or the Delta pilots would get some sort of monetary scope payout. However, I think if Delta could get rid of Skywest, they would, but at this point in time, they simply can't.

Actually I said, it's more than "a vote."

"Not ownership of a "code." More than a vote. A contractual restriction."

You keep bringing that up, yet I have completely refuted it many times.

I've said repeatedly that SWAPA has way better scope than we do, and the APA has at least very similar scope to us, as well as Alaska, which is ALPA, having far inferior scope than we (and SWAPA and APA) do.

Not sure why you keep barking up that tree. It appears to be some kind of vectorless attack on ALPA, but I'm not sure to what end for you.

DL will easily get rid of SKYW if they violate DALPA scope. That includes their sad fantasy of operating "non permitted types" as some kind of endless growth manifest destiny. They can do it if they want to on their own though, like IndyAir. SKYW is totally and completely dependent on guaranteed profit feed from a segment of the market that is shrinking rapidly.

I wouldn't scalpel into that solid rocket booster any further if I were you then. We have far, far more than "a vote" as you put it. We have a legally binding contract. While we theoretically could vote in some relief, the default is that we don't have to do anything and the lines we've agreed to stay where they are. I know you really want those extra large RJ's at SKYW, but it doesn't look like its going to happen.

We've already voted, and the results are already in and binding. Can they come to us and make a request for more relief? Sure, but, because we currently own that which we have negotiated thus far, any such relief will be up to us and not corporate and certainly not SKYW.

I don't know the depth of the DALPA scope clause, but, since SKW pilots don't have one, Skywest Holdings could, theoretically, start a new airline using 90 seaters or put it on a certificate without FL flying, like XJT and still be in compliance. See: GoJet origin story.

This. DALPA actually does actually have deep scope covering more than just RJ size & quantity. IIRC they have provisions covering code shares as well limits on the size of RJ that a DCI carrier can operate for ANY partner.

So if SKW started flying airbus for UAL, I think that would violate DALPA scope.

As for SKW trying to go it alone as a LCC...

1. Long list of historical failures.
2. Very difficult transition to make, since you major airline partners will not want to subsidize the growth of another LCC competitor so safe to assume that the code-share regional flying would end as quickly as contracts allow.
3. Could SKW ramp up a profitable LCC before loss of RJ code-share bankrupts them?

If any regional could pull it off it would be SKW, but it would be a measure of last resort, probably only in the face of the near-total collapse of the regional business model. The company would be far smaller and far less stable following such a transition.

The separate certificate trick only works if its not covered in a mainline pilot groups scope clause. So you'd have to check those first.

There is nothing to decide in court. There is no gray area here. If SW starts operating equipment in violation of what they agreed to in their contract with Delta the code share must end. If it did become a dispute which is not likely it would be handled by the NMB. The lawsuit would come into play when Delta sued SW for the damages incurred financially for their failure to honor the contract.

They wised up after certain regionals used that loophole.

They can not do that. The contract they signed forbids it. ACA tried it and their code was terminated.
At that point if they attempted it they are a competitor to Delta and management would be in the fight on our side.

Skywest dropping Delta (200/700/900/175) for the firm orders of 'prohibited' aircraft to fly for Alaska would result in 32% fewer airframes (22% if discounting the 200s on 120 day contracts). Depending on what the Alaska rate is dropping Delta is a business option (not a good one option but still an option).
I'm against scope relaxation or bigger aircraft but Skyw has a much clearer path to quickly replace Delta than Delta could quickly replace skyw. Keyword there was quickly.
I'm against all of this and don't think any of this will happen but the numbers do make it plausible.

Yes, it is the anti-competitor clause, however, what do you do with the gates Skywest owns in ATL. Skywest could lease them to American airlines.

As if AA is chomping at the bit for that? Nah. Not worried about it. Worst case DL loses all of the gates in question (highly unlikely that would happen) and could make up most of the capacity through upsizing and whoever wormed their way in would have to then slug it out in a two front war with DL and SWA who have found a highly symbiotic synergy.

If the alternative was to sit back and subsidize a megalomaniac rogue super jumbo RJ operator, they will find a way to pull the plug on them.

True, but I think your management has different goals than the pilot group.

I don't think they want that as the most desirable outcome. But if SKYW decides to force their hand, then the chips will fall where they may. Don't expect scope relief to accommodate SKYW's grand plans. It will not be achieved INMO with DL or UAL at least.

Not really, a loss of revenue from 30% of their fleet would quickly put Skywest out of business. Alaska is not going to take that flying and their new contract will almost certainly include restrictions. What you completely overlook is they would also loose their UAL flying.

This is the dumbest thread going. The MRJ options had stipulations on the jet meeting the current scope restrictions, if it doesn't meet them or they don't have a mainline partner that wants them on contract, then no obligation to convert the options to firm orders.
SKYW is not "stuck" with them, end-of-story.

Not really, a loss of revenue from 30% of their fleet would quickly put Skywest out of business. Alaska is not going to take that flying and their new contract will almost certainly include restrictions. What you completely overlook is they would also loose their UAL flying.

You might check on how gates are awarded in ATL. Skywest can quit using them but they go back to the airport to be reassigned.

Wonder if some of them are earmarked for JB's coming invasion.

Hoping against hope. Did not happen this round and won't happen next. I suspect they will announce a new version with the xisting engines but some of the airframe improvements that will meet the 86,000lb rule.

But we own, 100%, the code. We don't split it with the company; its ours. If they want to fly DL code, they must do so IAW our CBA. That means within the limits of the permitted exceptions we allow them, or it must be flown by our pilots. The company has no choice in the matter, and neither does SKYW.

Maybe Norwegian air shuttle will need these flown....


Too soon?

They won't get built without the US market.

The 175e2 has a bit of a stretch in it, so maybe they can meet the rule just by removing the stretch. Keep the new wing, engines, etc

The stretch isn't needed for 76 seats anyways.

No point in it. The aircraft would probably be less efficient then using the current engines. They are sized for the 90 seater.

Yes, but ATL launched it's new competition in ATL initiative on September 30 2016. Do you think they are going to award those gates to Delta when they are currently trying to leverage Delta out of gates in ATL?