SkyWest Sues Delta

M

meritflyer

Well-Known Member
This has to be one of the most idiotic moves I've seen in a long time from a regional airline, regardless of whether the claim is legitimate, considering Delta accounts for 2/3rds of SKYW revenue.

LINK

Nice move Jerry!
 
Seems like quite a bit would have been going on behind the scenes before it got to the point of going to court like this.

It seems a bit like biting the hand that feeds you.
 
Nick said:
Seems like quite a bit would have been going on behind the scenes before it got to the point of going to court like this.

It seems a bit like biting the hand that feeds you.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was going to say. Have they lost their minds over there or what? Unless they have something in the works for another mainline carrier with the size operation that they have with Delta, this is an incredibly boneheaded move.

But then again, who knows what their motives are. From the outside it seems foolish, but maybe their is something we aren't aware of. :rolleyes:
 
It has been discussed in the other thread, a difference of contractual interpretations it seems. Nice how our management has a contract with their 'employers' and have legal course :rolleyes:

Must be nice to have legal recourse! Grrrr :banghead:
 
I think SkyWest's suit is acceptable. There are apparently different interpretations of what the contract says.

That's not to say its kinda crummy (kinda reeealy crummy) management that lets relations get to the point where they have to sue a customer for direct payment. Bad CEO, no frickin' bonus.
 
Once I threatened to sue my parents for past allowance. They kicked me out. Moral of the story, well you get it.
It's TERRIBLE timing considering DL announced that they were going to cut some Delta Connection Inc. operations at the first of the year.
Now look at SkyWest's Website on the facts page you'll find that 66% (2/3) of SkyWest flying is United. Delta is only 30% of SkyWest business.

So who is this going to hurt?
ASA who flys 100% Delta. What's really sad is that they probably had no say in the matter! Let's see how Delta respond to this mess.
 
To compare a dispute over a contract between two large companies operating in a billion dollar industry regarding 25million dollars and you not getting your allowance from your parents is a bit naive.

Delta is not the parent company of Skywest, nor does it own Skywest. Skywest provides a service for a fee to Delta, if Skywest and Delta disagree over the terms of their contract, what are they to do?

If you were expecting a check from a guy who contracted you out month after month for $1,000 and he only sent you one for $750 what would you do?

This isn't Skywest taking a cheap-shot lawsuit out against Delta for getting burned with hot coffee or bumping their heads on a Delta aircraft. This is business. Don't get blinded by the Delta =Major=Omnipotent and Skywest=Regional=Oportunistic, these are two big companies in a business relationship.
 
Baronman said:
If you were expecting a check from a guy who contracted you out month after month for $1,000 and he only sent you one for $750 what would you do?
Click to expand...

How is your example any less naive then mine? We're not talking about Delta stiffing SkyWest, Inc. 25% of their wages, as in your example. That's a different senario.

It seems like this is an arguement of what is stated in contracts. My point simply; why would they bit the hand that feeds them?
Especially after Delta announced that they will be reducing Delta Connetion carriers.

SkyWest Airlines is in a okay position to cope with a possible loss of flying, considering 66% of their flying is with United. However ASA is not.

Whether the lawsuit is legitamate or not the timing could have been better. Like Airdale said, it just "seems boneheaded" that's all.
 
Ok, so you're saying Skywest is indebted to Delta and therefore Delta does not have to abide by their contract?

My example is less naive because a child is given an allowance by their parents for nothing, it is essentially a gift. A child is also essentially "owned" by their parents, the parents (within the law) can do with them as they wish, send them to the schools they want, decide which church they should go to etc. When a child "bites the hand that feeds them," the parents can act as they wish, cutting off allowance, restricting playtime etc....There is nothing out of the norm there and it is foolish for a child to piss off their parents for that reason, because they have no recourse. To draw an analogy saying DL is a parent and Skywest, their child is not accurate.

Your point, "Why would Skywest bite the hand that feeds them?" If Delta signs a contract saying we'll pay you X amount for your service...and then doesn't pay that amount, why have the contract at all? Should SKWY just take whatever pittance Delta sends their way because Skywest should feel fortunate to have a contract in these tough times?

By your logic Skywest or any other supplier should not actively seek to enforce a contract with a larger purchaser so as to not "bite the hand that feeds them?" Should SKwyest just chalk this up as a free-bee?
 
Ya'll seem to be missing the point of this lawsuit. Delta is refusing to pay Skywest because their contention is that the IROPS were caused by Skywest and don't fall under the IROP items Delta would be responsible for. For example, if Delta were to tell Skywest to cancel a flight and that decision eventually caused the IROP, then Delta would be responsible. If Skywest cancelled a flight because they had no crew or for a mechanical, then Delta does NOT have to pay. That is what this is about. Assigning the appropriate blame. These are multimillion dollar companies. This is how differences are resolved. This kind of thing happens regularly in all different industries.
 
Baronman said:
Ok, so you're saying Skywest is indebted to Delta and therefore Delta does not have to abide by their contract?

....

Your point, "Why would Skywest bite the hand that feeds them?" If Delta signs a contract saying we'll pay you X amount for your service...and then doesn't pay that amount, why have the contract at all? Should SKWY just take whatever pittance Delta sends their way because Skywest should feel fortunate to have a contract in these tough times?

By your logic Skywest or any other supplier should not actively seek to enforce a contract with a larger purchaser so as to not "bite the hand that feeds them?" Should SKwyest just chalk this up as a free-bee?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is bad timing because of Delta's announcement to reduce the number of Delta Connection carriers. I don't know the details (maybe this is Skywest's last recourse), but I would have at least held off until Delta started making it's move. After Comair's pilot strike, Delta has taken routes and jets away from them as punishment (ASA gets 2 CRJ-700s next month from Comair). Hopefully Delta doesn't retaliate in a similar way!
 
gtpilot said:
Unfortunately, it is bad timing because of Delta's announcement to reduce the number of Delta Connection carriers. I don't know the details (maybe this is Skywest's last recourse), but I would have at least held off until Delta started making it's move. After Comair's pilot strike, Delta has taken routes and jets away from them as punishment (ASA gets 2 CRJ-700s next month from Comair). Hopefully Delta doesn't retaliate in a similar way!
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: Thank you. ahhhh!
 
Pshaw, no airline is afraid of labor contracts. Corporate contracts, however.... There's a reason SkyWest's contract post-DL bankruptcy was so cherry.

DL has performance guarantees they must meet with SkyWest or they will lose a crap-ton of money on the ASA sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top