GogglesPisano

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

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

gloopy

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.

gloopy

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.

gloopy

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.

gloopy

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.

CBreezy

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.

rickair7777

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.

gloopy

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.

sailingfun

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.

rickair7777

They wised up after certain regionals used that loophole.