Ok someone explain to me pretty please...

[mojophone]

Ok I did a little more digging into the flights that I have paid for, for my family and I.
It turns out that my air tickets are actually for Chautauqua Airlines operating under the name of Delta Connections which as near as I can figure are sponsored by Delta Airlines. Now if the Delta Pilots do go on strike and Delta does go bellyup, does anyone have any clue as to how my flights will be affected?

 

[bicker]

You're asking two different questions. If the union strikes against Delta Airlines -- that's one scenario; and if Delta Airlines ceases operations permanently -- that's the second scenario.

In the case of a strike, Chautauqua isn't necessarily sidelined. However, since they exist primarily to feed Delta, it may be so prohibitively expensive for them to operate if Delta is not operating, so they may cancel all their flights. So, while there is a chance you'll be okay, there's a chance you won't.

In the case of Delta ceasing operations permanently, your chances aren't as good. Chautauqua is only willing to carry you on the promise of payment being provided the them by Delta on your behalf. If Delta is gone, Chautauqua isn't going to be getting paid. They are obligated, though, to carry you for an additional $50 fee, if they aren't able to sell your seat to someone else. However, that's assuming that they're still operating. If Delta goes under, it is likely that their feeder airlines will go under as well.

 

[mojophone]

Thanks Bicker and I hope that my views on union vs non union won't disuade you or make you think that I am a complete ****. I am just a regualr working joe who happens to believe in the proactive stances that unions take to help all workers. Do I agree with everything the unions do? nope I sure don't but I feel that they help provide more good than they do damage. I guess my biggest issue is what corperate america does to it's workers by forcing them to take pay consessions and laying hundreds and thousands of people off then immediately turn around and give themselves huge raises rather than they themselves taking paycuts right along with the rest of us. I just find that to be totally wrong after they tell us that they can't make ends meet and it would help the company operate at a profitable level. If they would take paycuts like the rest of us then I might have some sympathy for them and I would be more willing to give in to their demands for consessions etc etc

 

[tkldisney]

I've been wondering the same thing. Our flights May 8 & 13 are on DL connection carrier Freedom Airlines. I know the judge is suppose to rule Monday regarding the flight attendants & Comair (also considered a connection carrier but owned by DL). So we'll have to see what happens then.
I know the flt. attendants & pilots for Freedom & Chatauqua are not owned & operated by DL, but are they willing to cross picket lines if DL pilots strike or is that not even something to consider?

 

[bicker]

I hope that my views on union vs non union won't disuade you or make you think that I am a complete ****.

I would never think badly about someone who supports a collective perspective: We simply disagree about what's best for America, and that's okay -- that disagreement is a source of America's strength.

What I get riled up over is hypocricy: Folks wanting their unions, but then complaining that airfares are so high, or that the service isn't that good. Folks wanting low-cost medical insurance, but then complaining that an experimental or discretionary procedure was declined by the insurance company. That sort of thing.

I am just a regualr working joe who happens to believe in the proactive stances that unions take to help all workers.

That used to be the case, but actually it isn't unions that are doing that now, but rather various not-for-profits, like Common Cause. The unions really are just in it for themselves now.

I guess my biggest issue is what corperate america does to it's workers by forcing them to take pay consessions and laying hundreds and thousands of people off then immediately turn around and give themselves huge raises rather than they themselves taking paycuts right along with the rest of us.

The objective of business is to make profit. The managers should be rewarded for improving the bottom line. If lowering the cost of labor is practicable, that's what should be done. Workers aren't owed jobs: Owners are owed profits.

I just find that to be totally wrong after they tell us that they can't make ends meet and it would help the company operate at a profitable level.

Executive pay is a red herring. It has little impact on pay concessions and layoffs of workers.

If they would take paycuts like the rest of us then I might have some sympathy for them and I would be more willing to give in to their demands for consessions etc etc

That's, I believe, the problem with this line of reasoning: Sympathy is irrelevant. Business isn't a "how do you feel" situation. Business is firmly based on reality: cause and effect, supply and demand, expense and revenue. I think a lot of people feel that business shouldn't be businesslike, but rather should be like a caring parent. It's great when a business is so fat that it can afford to do that, but it isn't reasonable to expect that. If people really want that, they should look to get it from their government, not from their employer.