Alright, I'll try this again since somehow my post got screwed up
DL can assert it’s in compliance with the agreement, given the capacity of the A220 and the fact that it didn’t exist at the time of the signing. Companies don’t have to consult with unions on business decisions, and it’s probable arbitrators would agree with DL. If it even went that far - if DL’s temporarily moving pilots to higher paying M90/320/757, and the overall payroll continues to grow, it’s doubtful they’d even grieve the move.
1) I just posted what is in the PWA. Didn't make any comment if the A220 could replace the 717s. I just posted the PWA
2) Companies DO have to consult with unions on business decisions all the time. Thats literally why the pilots have scope to begin with. If what you say is true Delta would openly ignore its contract with DALPA for basically anything.
btw, you might want to research what happened with United, its pilots and the 73G in the exact same situation you are proposing.
DL could easily argue the A220 meets the definition of a new small narrowbody aircraft. I’ve worked with unions many times; unions can negotiate scope and other work rules, but (as a generalization) they can’t tell a company how to run its business, or interfere with business decisions.
That said, the union’s sole goal is to protect its membership. If jobs aren’t being lost, payroll is increasing and mainline flying is staying mainline/isn’t outsourced to regionals, it’s doubtful the union would say anything. Especially since ultimately, the 220 would be replacing the 717.You can’t compare this to UA and the 73G. Kirby almost immediately nixed the 73G because of his concerns about the aircraft’s economics. He didn’t even bother to bring his argument to the union, which would’ve probably relented because it wanted those jobs
Yes he did. United's management has asked UALPA for 76 seat relief from both the new 73G order (old management) and additional used 737/32S aircraft (new management). Both times they have been told no. IIRC even during the last rounds of contract talks they weren't able to change 1-L-25 in the united contract.
Simple fact is if what you were saying is true, United would have already gone to an arbitrator to get relief. they don't and they can't because.....
1-L-25 “New Small Narrowbody Aircraft” means a CS100, E190 or E195 aircraft, provided that such aircraft is neither in the Company Fleet as of the date of signing of this Agreement nor acquired through merger or acquisition of another air carrier.
Even though the used 319s, 73Gs and new 73Gs are close to capacity in those airplanes and are "a business decision" the company still doesn't have additional 76 seat jets.
as for the DALPA letting Delta add any jets and keep the additional 76 seaters because hey its jobs. I recommend you actually dig into why DALPA (and later UALPA) put the aircraft types in plain, clear, english in black and white in the contract, instead of taking an approach of just letting the company add any 88 seat jets they want, and why UALPA continues not to allow United relief even though the airline has added several new 737s and used 737/32S aircraft.
Again, you are confusing the fact that DALPA can't tell Delta what planes its has to operate (true) with the fact DALPA can tell Delta what planes it must operate in order for scope relief. Precedence for this has been set by the fact United still isn't able to add additional 76 seat jets as they add used 737s and A32S aircraft. Unions, at least in the airline industry, stop airlines from making "business decisions" all the time.
United's contract here https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopMo ... ntID=43832
having said all of this, none of it matters. It would never go to arbitration. Delta and DALPA would almost certainly amend the contract to allow the 221 to fall into the new small narrowbody section. Highly unlikely DALPA will go for the 223 though.
and none of that matters because till Delta gets rid of the MD88 and MD90s they don't have the training house capacity to replace the 717 and continue to hire at the rate they will need to hire over the next two-three years. So even if Delta decides to replace the 717, it isn't something that can really be done in the next few years.
So I'm done with this cause its off topic and really something that doesn't matter. I posted what the PWA says. You think Delta can get an arbitrator to change the PWA base on your opinion that the 220 is close enough to the 717. I don't think they would even go that route. We both have our opinions.
either way, we can discus it more if/when the subject becomes a real life situation instead of taking this thread off topic over a bridge that hasn't even been crossed yet and public hasn't even been talked about yet.
Last edited by deltal1011man
on Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.