So about that Delta + $1

O

OldTownPilot

Well-Known Member
HA HA HA

3 months to come up with that when supposedly they are the ones with the time crunch. Goes to show how much they really care about making the negotiations quick to get that JV done.

Smisek really can't come up with an idea of his own can't he?

With all the lawyers on Smith Street, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they signed off on the JV anyway with the DOJ, and told the pilots, "tough, file a grievance, and sue us". They have already blatantly ignored scope twice, having XJT fly hub-to-hub flights, so that goes to show how much they really respect the contract.
 
jtrain609 said:
Was the hub to hub flying for XJT recovery flying?
Click to expand...

No. The latest was a turn IAH-EWR-IAH. Once the plane got to EWR the MEC had thrown enough of a fit that the flight back to IAH was cancelled. I don't know if it the original plan was to just get the plane to EWR or what. Anyways it doesn't matter, no passengers can be flown by contracting airlines. Period. XJT can ferry planes all they want between hubs, just as long as no passengers are carried.
 
Eh? I was always under the impression that XJT could fly recovery flying between hubs, but not on a regularly scheduled basis.
 
If the CAL guys jump for this, then it won't matter. XJT and everyone else will be doing hub-to-hub and Republic or someone else will slide in with 76 seaters. Those guys on furlough will just wait longer, and CAL will just outsource more to the regionals as their senior guys retire.

For the love of god, don't go for the carrot. I don't wanna be stuck at a regional for the rest of my career.....
 
It's just the first response anyways. You almost know its going to be some lowball pile of garbage.

I have a feeling that the scope will allow the UA JV under certain provisions, with a pay raise that probably splits the current contract and what the openers are, with some sort of "large RJ pay band developed, and it will pass 54-46%


As for he hub to hub stuff, its not a earth shattering scope provision, but its great evidence as to how much regard the view the contract, in very black and white matters, that potentially opens a window of insight as to how the rest of the scope provisions might be viewed by management. Break them now, let them (the pilots) just deal with it.
 
Ok so since I obviously missed something or the original thread this is in reference too...what exactly is this talking about??? :dunno:
 
Rocketman99 said:
Ok so since I obviously missed something or the original thread this is in reference too...what exactly is this talking about??? :dunno:
Click to expand...

CAL management proposed the Delta contract +$1 to the CAL MEC last week. It would result in a huge improvement in work rules and a couple hundred millions dollars per year in overall improvements for the pilots, but it would also mean a complete gutting of their scope language, which means that hundreds of pilots would likely be furloughed.

Not a good deal, and the CAL MEC doesn't seem very interested. It does show that CAL management is desperate, though, which means the pilots have leverage.
 
So we are praying, again, that mainline guys don't give up scope?

I don't know if I can keep running at and trying to kick this football.
 
Hope they don't, but I think they might.

Lots of senior guys there who might be ready to 'get mine' while the getting is good. They might not really care anymore.
 
Is the ship sinking?

Or what's the deal?

Trying to get this taken care of so they can move forward with a "partnership" (read: merger) with United?
 
surreal1221 said:
Trying to get this taken care of so they can move forward with a "partnership" (read: merger) with United?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about a merger; I think it's more about the international code share that they need to start by August, and their current contract doesn't allow the company to code share without approval of the pilots.
 
surreal1221 said:
What's the hot business opportunity they need to execute by summer?
Click to expand...

They have been given anti-trust immunity by the feds for a joint venture with UAL, Air Canada, and Lufthansa, for a code share arrangement for overseas flights. The CAL contract prohibits the company from entering into any sort of revenue sharing deal with another domestic carrier, so unless relief is provided, CAL will have to back out of the joint venture. The feds have given them until Jan 2011 to begin their venture, so if the scope relief isn't provided by the fall, then they won't have enough time to get it off the ground.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
They have been given anti-trust immunity by the feds for a joint venture with UAL, Air Canada, and Lufthansa, for a code share arrangement for overseas flights. The CAL contract prohibits the company from entering into any sort of revenue sharing deal with another domestic carrier, so unless relief is provided, CAL will have to back out of the joint venture. The feds have given them until Jan 2011 to begin their venture, so if the scope relief isn't provided by the fall, then they won't have enough time to get it off the ground.
Click to expand...

Todd,

Do you think that H.R. 4788 will help prevent what the Feds have approved? And if so, is it not slightly odd that they've received approval and in the meantime a bill was recently introduced to prevent it?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
They have been given anti-trust immunity by the feds for a joint venture with UAL, Air Canada, and Lufthansa, for a code share arrangement for overseas flights. The CAL contract prohibits the company from entering into any sort of revenue sharing deal with another domestic carrier, so unless relief is provided, CAL will have to back out of the joint venture. The feds have given them until Jan 2011 to begin their venture, so if the scope relief isn't provided by the fall, then they won't have enough time to get it off the ground.
Click to expand...

Eww.
 
cencal83406 said:
Todd,

Do you think that H.R. 4788 will help prevent what the Feds have approved? And if so, is it not slightly odd that they've received approval and in the meantime a bill was recently introduced to prevent it?
Click to expand...

It might prevent it, but I don't think so. Since the two carriers would both be providing flights overseas, instead of only one carrier providing the flights with both sharing the revenue, it would really depend upon the share of ASMs between the two carriers. The whole idea of HR 4788 is making sure that a carrier can't just have someone else do the flying for them while still collecting a large portion of the revenue. The bill is meant to target operations such as the Aer Lingus/UAL partnership, in which UAL doesn't fly a single flight under the partnership, but receives a large portion of the resulting revenue. The bill would prohibit this type of operation. With the UAL/CAL proposed partnership, however, both carriers would be doing flights and sharing revenue, so unless one carrier is doing an inordinate portion of the flying, then I don't think this bill would affect it. I'm not the expert on this bill, though, so I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top