Originally Posted by TheManager

Here we go into the end game folks.



In my opinion, this is nothing more than a probe and expectation manipulation all in one.

If the rumor has it as a 20%, then 5%, 5% along with 76/90 and Alaska increases offer, they sit back and watch what the trial balloon does. This rumor also sets an image and scenario that we react to mentally and emotionally and then vocalize.


Manager,

I really doubt it. First of all 90 + percent of Delta Pilots do not post on the forums - so I doubt the trial balloon would have as much visibility as you give it credit for.

Hell - only 60% of guys participated in the contract survey and DALPA was thrilled at that.

Secondly the guys who do post on here for the most part are junior and to some extent try to out demand each other in wanting 70% pay raises - so I doubt a 20% trial balloon would get any traction.

Finally, some individuals may put out outlandish statements such as DAL Management invented the question mark, giving away 90 seat Scope etc, but I doubt there is any organized management plan to start false rumors and then gauge the reaction as a company research project.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Scoop

1. Not so much research project as it is psychological manipulation.


2. Yes the boards here are active as they are at DALPA, but have you been in a crew lounge or van lately? Haven't heard this much since C2k voting window was open and we don't even have a TA.


3. More under/side/top boob is needed. What are the rules on barely there thongs?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Again, you seem to be equating veiled threats with actual risk. The FAR riskier vote would be to change our current language to allow more 76 seaters (or even higher seat numbers). We'd literally be falling for a con job if we weakened our current language because of the unused threats in our current weak language.



It's because I was so surprised and disappointed that you would say what you've said in your previous few posts. You of all people. You pay attention to this stuff. You know how devastating it would be for us to weaken our scope further, yet you actually say: 'we may be forced to accept this ugliness to preserve our top end flying...'

You can't fold like cheap patio furniture with the first little bit of pressure. I'm trying to tell you that if you fall for this, you can expect this in your future:

Young regional kid to the grizzled old acl65pilot: "You greedy bastard! You sold scope back in 2012 and kept me out of the majors. Thanks for selling scope to pad your own wallet."

Grizzled old acl65pilot: "Wait a minute, you don't understand. We HAD to give up more 76 seat flying. They said they would just JV and code share the whole airline if we didn't. We had no choice. We didn't understand until later that management never intended to JV/code share any more. We've been wanting to change it, but who would have guessed that when that 2012 contract was amendable way back in 2017, the company would still be dragging their feet 15 years later?"

Sound familiar?

Carl

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Car;
You are missing my point. It is not what the company wants to do that is the issue, it is what they can do with JV's. Leave RJ's out of it for a second. I am stating that our flanks are open. You also miss the main point I am trying to make. They can go it alone and use the nuclear option, but that would marginalize the airline to an extent. They want our support for phase two.

WRT to RJ's the agreement and whether or not there is a change in the caps is hearsay. I will judge the agreement when I see it. Again, the language is only as good as its weakest paragraph. In addition, we need to be willing to enforce it. If that is suspect, it does not matter what it says.

IF IF IF, there is more RJ's allowed it is going to lose a lot of support, no matter what protections or pull down plans are in place. We do not disagree on that. Again, lets wait and see what we get. From what I gather, we may not have to wait too long.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

We are not idiots. We can see that the company wants more 76 seat aircraft and that our union is actually entertaining the idea. You said it yourself that the new Pinnacle is geared to easily replace as many of its 50 seaters with as many 76 seaters as our scope allows. Fortunately for us, the 76 seater is finally against our limits. I know they can trade some 70 seaters with 76 seaters if we grow, but I highly doubt we will ever grow to that level again. If our union would just put a statement out saying that no more 76 seat aircraft will be outsourced, everything would be put to rest. Unfortunately, our union keeps putting out politically correct statements in regards to scope that don't mean anything. You know that the TA will push our line in the sand further. How much further is the question. I am hearing through rumors numbers of 300 70+ seat jets total. I believe right now we're at 255 70+seat jets with 153 of them being 76 seaters. What's another 45 EMB 175's or CRJ 900's? Compass only has 42 airplanes according to here. That's only another 500 pilot jobs outsourced. With our retirements, we'll never furlough. Most of us will never upgrade either though if the selling of scope continues.