PinnacleFO

What about this: Since pinnacle is an going to be an all DCI carrier soon you basically propose a staple but you look at the list at pinnacle and you say that no captain can lose his seat or seniority as long as the airplane is flying. We have a bunch of lifers at the top who will not move on anywhere else so its not fair to them to be stapled but also its not fair to have any regional pilot move ahead of a mainline pilot so if mainline is trying to recapture all the flying, staple the regionals starting with pinnacle but put in a 5-10 year agreement saying that no mainline pilot may displace a pre pinnacle captain on the pre regional aircraft unless there are furloughs. If that captain bids for an fo spot on a delta aircraft, he gives up those rights and a delta pilot may replace his captain seat. The final result would be that all pinnacle pilots would be on the delta seniority list behind the last current delta pilot. As the 200's are parked the pinnacle pilots would fall into available FO positions on the current delta fleet.
hmmm? any takers?
Also to take care of some of the clowns we have hired over the years, you have 1-2 years probation for every pinnacle pilot

This would also take care of at least 2 of the years you guys will have to hire 800 pilots a year

80ktsClamp

I'm down with that. In fact that's probably the only way to do it.

The ASA/Comair thing years ago I think was short sightedness on the account of both parties. I don't think DALPA really wanted to force the issue and the senior ASA/Comair guys did exactly as expected.

All this being theoretical of course... remember Comair is still owned by Delta, too. I doubt there would be anything to force the issue of bringing all the Pineapple people on.

forgot to bid

A staple of Pinnacle is too much of a mess. if they didnt do it for compass (nwa hired, part of a nwa deal, all 70-76 seaters) Ii doubt they'd do it for any large operator without that unique relationship and tons of 50 seaters.

how to recapture scope? as far as i am concerned we adopt an RAH scope policy; all flying for Delta is done by a pilot on the Chatauaqua seniority list.



i mean delta list.


and how do we get that? we offer unlimited 76 seaters but each time that airplane goes airborne two Delta pilots at the controls on our pwa or it doesnt carry a single delta passenger.

will the company go for it? hell no. why end a perfectly good and seamless whipsaw?

back to square 1.

scambo1

95000 I win

FlyZ

MTB, Im pretty sure I saw a thread about this a couple of weeks ago. Some JB guys were talking about a scam set up in one of the NYC concession areas, I believe. You might try searching for the thread and see if they got any resolution? Hopefully the FBI is tracking down those punks! Good luck.

forgot to bid

In the name of scope recapture I think we should just start a PR campaign around a simple question, "if Delta Air Lines' is the best, why does it outsource YOUR FLIGHT to multiple regional airlines jockeying to be the next lowest bidder?" Or in fun bumper sticker size: "BITTER ABOUT FLYING ON THE LOWEST BIDDER?"

Or a little more centric to our needs: "Ask why is your Delta flight not being flown by Delta pilots?

The connotation on that last question would be a problem for ALPA to run with because how can ALPA in good faith say Delta Air Lines pilots are better than Pinnacle/Comair/ExpressJet/Alaska/Compass pilots who are also ALPA?

The general direction here though is, shame them out of regional service and bring Delta passengers home to Delta Air Lines.

Bucking Bar

Nothing was taken out of context. You asked for opinions to gauge a response to a proposal that in your opinion improved scope by allowing larger jets to be outsourced in exchange for fewer in number. Pilots piled on with opinions that your proposal was not something that they would find acceptable. When your trial balloon came back all shot full of holes, the logical extrapolation was that our MEC should get the same result from their trial balloon and crap can the "re-balancing" version of a scope sale concept.

Don't know how you determine standard deviation from comments on this board (which were unanimous against your concept). Perhaps you are privy to the survey data which shows pay as by far the leading interest of Delta pilots. If so, consider that the survey did not consider whether a scope concession was an immediate existential threat to ALPA as the bargaining agent for Delta pilots going forward.

I support ALPA, but more so, I support my fellow pilots (even you). Unity does not allow more outsourcing, even if fewer 70 seaters (ahem ... unwanted 50 seaters) balance the deal. Management can get them, but a Delta Pilot must fly them.

Why not negotiate a lower DAL 70 seater rate that puts us in the game and give the widebody guys more money? That's more of a win / win than more out sourcing and really, the productivity of the larger jets justify more of a pay differential than we have now.

Bucking Bar

The larger problem for DALPA is their own participation in the outsourcing scheme. Hard to be publicaly against something you are on record for proposing and / or voting for.

forgot to bid

i.e. A Delta Air Lines 737-800 = A Delta Air Lines E-175 operated by Shuttle America.

i.e. A Delta Air Lines 737-800 flown by Delta Air Lines pilots, served by Delta Air Lines flight attendants, dispatched by Delta Air Lines dispatchers, maintained by Delta Air Lines mechanics, serviced by Delta Air Lines ground personnel, boarded by Delta Air Lines gate agents = A Delta Air Lines E-175 operated by Shuttle America, a subsidiary of Republic Airways Holdings who also owns Frontier Airlines, flown by Chautauqua pilots, served by Shuttle America flight attendants?, dispatched by.... I get confused with them. Who runs that place again?

FlyZ

This is exactly my point. Which of these two statements is more specific?

A) We do not support any larger aircraft at DCI, jet, turbofan, or turboprop.

B) We demand as one of our highest priorities a significant reduction in the Alaska code share abuse and significantly fewer outsourced aircraft at DCI, particularly the larger RJs (borrowed from Gloopy, because as usual, he speaks for me).

I would argue they are on the same level, as far as showing our cards or setting the bar. And yet, our union made Statement A and not Statement B. I can only infer that there is some CYA going on with the thousands of RJ pilots they also represent. Also maybe some CYA with us - they don't want to make a strong scope promise now and then have their hands tied down the road. The problem is, I WANT their hands tied (at that time, in that specific area). I'm only one vote, but I'm basically unwilling to budge in that one area. Once the used car salesman gets you to name a number, he has somewhere from which to work.

Not to point any fingers, but I have noticed Slow and Sailing go silent when asked the direct question about reducing DCI flying. So, would either of you confirm (or guess, if you really don't know) that our MEC would also support Statement B above?