Mesa loses to Delta

wheelsup said:
Honestly I have no idea how Delta won, that sets a large precedent for regional operators to NOT cancel flights at the request of the mainline partner. Actually the more I think about it, the more f'ed up it is that Delta won the second time.
Click to expand...

Read the Findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Pretty darn clear why the judgement was in favor of Delta.

Besides... nobody "won" the first time around. Take a look at what a preliminary injuction actually means. This decision is all that matters right now. After reading the document, it would seem that Judge Cooper made the right call.
 
Won't this set precedent allowing US Airways to drop Mesa for the same thing without the legal riga that DAL had to go through?
 
No, for one they are in different district courts and the precedent, if any doesn't carry over. For two, the two contracts are no doubt written differently.

Also, Mesa is "important" according to US Airways CEO :rolleye:
 
This is why it's important to have EVERYTHING written down in a contract. Verbal amendments don't count.
 
ctab5060X said:
Read the Findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Pretty darn clear why the judgement was in favor of Delta.

Besides... nobody "won" the first time around. Take a look at what a preliminary injuction actually means. This decision is all that matters right now. After reading the document, it would seem that Judge Cooper made the right call.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could explain it a bit, I read thru but my legalese isn't very good. All I got from it was that they had meetings where as the COO told Mesa their voluntarily canceled flights wouldn't count toward their completion rate and then evidently because of turnover Delta "forgot" they said that and since it was never written down in a contract they won.

Good for Delta for exploiting a loophole but I'm surprised people on here can view that as fair. Mesa got bent over, no two ways about it.
 
wheelsup said:
Good for Delta for exploiting a loophole but I'm surprised people on here can view that as fair.
Click to expand...

You don't think JO would take advantage of a loophole if it was to his benefit? While it may not be fair in "Wonderful World," it's a business dispute between two companies that look to the bottom line and that don't necessarily care about the individual employee. With the new managment team at Delta, you can expect them to take a much more aggressive attitude towards their subcontractors. I suggest a reading of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" to see how they are going to play.
 
wheelsup said:
Good for Delta for exploiting a loophole but I'm surprised people on here can view that as fair. Mesa got bent over, no two ways about it.
Click to expand...

I agree it seems pretty . I think personal feelings regarding the carriers cloud what seems to be fair. Typically all things with majors are good, people here desire to be associated with DL, work for them etc....Mesa on the other hand is a regional (Baaaad) and a bottom rung regional at that. They HAVE to be wrong....especially when in a dispute with DL.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
No, for one they are in different district courts and the precedent, if any doesn't carry over. For two, the two contracts are no doubt written differently.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The bold is the biggie... this is a federal filing so it definitely sets a precedent for future cases. Even if future cases are not at all like the MAG v DAL case, certain portions of Judge Cooper's Conclusions of Law can still be cited as precedent. You would be surprised just how many times ruling in cases from other districts come to play in a judge's decision.

wheelsup said:
Maybe you could explain it a bit, I read thru but my legalese isn't very good. All I got from it was that they had meetings where as the COO told Mesa their voluntarily canceled flights wouldn't count toward their completion rate and then evidently because of turnover Delta "forgot" they said that and since it was never written down in a contract they won.
Click to expand...

Well basically the representative for MAG and the representative for DAL had a so called "oral agreement". However, MAG failed to bring this up when Delta renegotiated MAG's ERJ agreement a few months prior. On top of that, nothing was ever put in writing. Furthermore, even J.O. seemed to know nothing about the agreement (one would think that if it was a deal that he would know).

From what I gathered, the testimony of the MAG representative fell apart during the actual trial in late April (documents, other testimony - including J.O.) whereas the testimony on the Delta side was corroborated with addtional testmony.
 
wheelsup said:
Good for Delta for exploiting a loophole but I'm surprised people on here can view that as fair. Mesa got bent over, no two ways about it.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that a company that could prove it's case in a trial should not win?

Delta had their stuff together, Mesa did not. Reading through all the documented errors that Mesa made alone seems to be enough to rule in favor of Delta. Their internal communication was so poor that they couldn't even prove a verbal agreement existed.




EDIT: Question: If Mesa had not been granted a preliminary injuction, would everyone still see this as Mesa getting bent over?
 
ctab5060X said:
Well basically the representative for MAG and the representative for DAL had a so called "oral agreement". However, MAG failed to bring this up when Delta renegotiated MAG's ERJ agreement a few months prior. On top of that, nothing was ever put in writing. Furthermore, even J.O. seemed to know nothing about the agreement (one would think that if it was a deal that he would know).

From what I gathered, the testimony of the MAG representative fell apart during the actual trial in late April (documents, other testimony - including J.O.) whereas the testimony on the Delta side was corroborated with addtional testmony.
Click to expand...

I read the initial briefs when they were filed a little bit ago (posted on another forum), and that's pretty much what I got from it. Delta claimed they weren't liable since it wasn't in writing and the person making the oral agreement never passed it along to the decision makers. Mesa claimed they weren't liable because an exec a Delta said it was okay, but they also mentioned it wasn't in writing.

wheelsup said:
Good for Delta for exploiting a loophole but I'm surprised people on here can view that as fair. Mesa got bent over, no two ways about it.
Click to expand...

In the legal world, if it isn't written down, it all comes down to "he said, she said." Even when it comes to discipline, if it isn't written down, it didn't happen. How many guys have gotten out of disciplinary things because the company failed to follow proper procedures by following the outlined process (e.g. verbal, written, final)? By saying Delta should honor their oral agreement, you SHOULD also say those guys should be terminated even though the company skipped a step. I mean, the INTENT was there, and there was an understanding that it happened, right?

For the record, I'm not pro-Delta or anti-Mesa (or vice versa). I'm just calling it like I see it from a legal standpoint.
 
Who else is Mesa and MAG feeding right now?

US Airways, I know of.. and United (and soon CAL by default).

If Mesa folds, how would this affect their other mainline feed partners?
 
ctab5060X said:
So you are saying that a company that could prove it's case in a trial should not win?

Delta had their stuff together, Mesa did not. Reading through all the documented errors that Mesa made alone seems to be enough to rule in favor of Delta. Their internal communication was so poor that they couldn't even prove a verbal agreement existed.
Click to expand...

I thought the Delta COO testified that he in fact recognized that the voluntary cancellations weren't counting?
 
kellwolf said:
In the legal world, if it isn't written down, it all comes down to "he said, she said." Even when it comes to discipline, if it isn't written down, it didn't happen. How many guys have gotten out of disciplinary things because the company failed to follow proper procedures by following the outlined process (e.g. verbal, written, final)? By saying Delta should honor their oral agreement, you SHOULD also say those guys should be terminated even though the company skipped a step. I mean, the INTENT was there, and there was an understanding that it happened, right?

For the record, I'm not pro-Delta or anti-Mesa (or vice versa). I'm just calling it like I see it from a legal standpoint.
Click to expand...

I understand from a legal standpoint Delta should have won. I also understand "alls fair in love and war".

Doesn't change my mind that Mesa got bent over.
 
Cptnchia said:
You don't think JO would take advantage of a loophole if it was to his benefit? While it may not be fair in "Wonderful World," it's a business dispute between two companies that look to the bottom line and that don't necessarily care about the individual employee. With the new managment team at Delta, you can expect them to take a much more aggressive attitude towards their subcontractors. I suggest a reading of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" to see how they are going to play.
Click to expand...

Mesa did Delta a favor and canceled their flights only to get the boot because they canceled too many flights.

That's not being aggressive that is being a [device used to introduce a stream of water into the body for medical or hygienic reasons].

Edit guess you can't say the d-word on here!
 
Firebird2XC said:
Who else is Mesa and MAG feeding right now?

US Airways, I know of.. and United (and soon CAL by default).

If Mesa folds, how would this affect their other mainline feed partners?
Click to expand...

Mesa won't fold they will discharge the jets in bankruptcy along with lots of other debt and come out stronger than they went in.

IOW we will be the worse for it long term.
 
wheelsup said:
Mesa did Delta a favor and canceled their flights only to get the boot because they canceled too many flights.

That's not being aggressive that is being a [device used to introduce a stream of water into the body for medical or hygienic reasons].

Edit guess you can't say the d-word on here!
Click to expand...

Look at it this way.... Delta treated MAG just like MAG treated their employees.
 
wheelsup said:
Mesa won't fold they will discharge the jets in bankruptcy along with lots of other debt and come out stronger than they went in.

IOW we will be the worse for it long term.
Click to expand...

Actually there's now more of a possibility of end for Mesa or in all likelyness a takeover by another regional. I'm sure JO was counting on some kind of Delta settlement money to fund this BK, now that they will lose the Delta contract and actually have to pay them penalties, their situation is very bleak. They will be losing out on 20million per month as a result of this ruling! JO at this point is literally at the mercy of UAL and US and whether they keep him or just transfer the flying to the other half dozen airlines that are begging to do it. Mesa is one US or UA press release away from shutting down operations at this point or until the contract runs out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top