Originally Posted by Whidbey

Bar- Great post.

I'm sure it's been covered on here, but we should bear in mind the economic backdrop that accompanied the RJ explosion in the nineties. We were on the back side of Desert Storm and the country was flush with cash (and very cheap oil) courtesy of our Saudi friends. The economics of the industry have changed drastically between then and now.

Hopefully the pilot group can hold the line on scope.... but I think the point has been made on here that we don't want to give away the farm with respect to pay and work rules if the company is just using scope threats as a bluff. Is it possible the company knows outsourcing is going to be less and less cost effective, but realizes it would be stupid to admit at risk of losing negotiating capital?

It's always tempting to prepare for the last war, but the next one will quite likely be fundamentally different.

Break break... I for one have appreciated all the ALPA mailers about how to read a balance sheet, etc. FWIW, it's informative for a new guy. However, I can see how that particular mailer could be perceived as a tacit endorsement of the (management) position that pilot pay be largely determined by profitability. The reductio ad absurdum argument is that if the company is losing money, we should be paying them to fly their planes. I'm not trying to criticize or say I know a better way, but I hope we can establish ourselves as more of a fixed cost.

Glad to be here.

Whidbey

Originally Posted by NuGuy

Bar and Carl are also correct that it is MADNESS to assume that we'll get any change of direction from the current leadership. They KNOW that mistakes were made in the langauge of Section 1, but they still don't want anyone watchdogging the most critical part of our contract, and you can bet that anything vomited up at the negotiating table will be hard sold to get %50 +1.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

This is perhaps an appropriate time to remind everyone that 22 years ago the scope line was UNLIMITED 70 seaters. It took 17 years AND bankruptcy to move that line 6 seats, and even then there were restrictions on the number.

I absolutely reject the idea that the MEC has caved repeatedly on Scope. The truth is, neither the NWA pilot group, nor the DAL pilot group was willing to shut the door that has been open forever. And yes, in bankruptcy, the door was opened wider. Bad things happen in bankruptcy.

I am completely confident DALPA will not open the door further, and perhaps may even close it a bit.

Originally Posted by gloopy

I think in many cases we can completely can a lot of the "long term contract" flying and Delta is only on the hook for the aircraft leases. While we would still have to eat those, we would get out 100% of the fuel, MX, crew, middle management, most insurance and all other costs, even if we parked them and ate the leases 100%.

Some of those lease costs could likely be significantly mitigated when it comes time in the very near future to talk turkey WRT new leases for 100-300 narrowbody aircraft plus regular existing lease renegotiations anyway. "Sure, we'd be happy to go with your leasing company for these XX Billion dollars worth of leases over the coming decades, if only we could get out of XXX Million in these useless RJ leases we could totally pick your company over that other one" kind of thing.

But in any case, worst case we park them and eat the leases only, which is only a smal part of the massive RJ deadweight bloat. If we recapture scope, we can cancel some agreements early and assume the leases, which we're paying 100% for anyway, and I'm sure we can come up with some alternate bogus day trader tomfoolery paper trick to pretend those lease obligations aren't on our books when every BBA sophomore and above knows they are and always have been Let them play the seperater certificate trick within our own airline, as there is no need to outsource to a true third party provider to do so.

The ACMI air groups offer absolutely zero value other than the miniscule pocket change we get from the inherent savings derived from all of them undercutting eachother by a perpetual few perent anyway, and that is largely eaten up in redundant management overhead, operational inefficiencies and product/service degredation in the first place.

We can dump most of them, assume the leases, fly them ourselves or park them and if gas keeps climbing the "deal me an ace" crowd can agree to fly them for free and they won't make economic sense. Being on the hook for the lease payment is nothing compared to a massive fleet of insanely cost ineffective outsource jets.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

We bought more than 500 of them. That's more than a ten billion dollar acquisition. Not sure how many we've been able to spin off.

By the way, we paid $21 million for each 50 seat CRJ. AirTran paid $18 million for 717's. (per Jerry Atkin)

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Anybody got a way we can move 76 seater allowance down below the current quantity or seating back to 50? Just out of curiosity, I don't see anything viable other than to demand the language in the contract and have that undercut by pilots who don't get what scope means.

Originally Posted by FlyZ

Well, it's the last day of May, and DALPA promised "further review" of the RAH situation in late May. Anyone know if this has happened, is happening or have we given up?

Originally Posted by FlyZ

Also, how many DPA cards would need to be received before ALPA would consider it a threat and listen to the membership?

Originally Posted by FlyZ

It's the non-MEMRAT side letter or some juicy payrates to give just a LITTLE more scope that scare me the most.

Originally Posted by gripen