Bucking Bar

It is amazing how tribal our pilot group has become.

I have only ever advocated for more flying for Delta pilots; career progression and hiring, measured in JOBS.

What I wrote was how the company needs to get into compliance, a path for us to administer our representation to achieve that goal.

The web board response changed because they measure everything by which tribe they think the writer belongs to ... I've been constant, aside from seeing how we could administer the compliance task better and getting the MEC to adopt those changes unanimously.

Bucking Bar

What I am trying to explain in a politic fashion is that Delta pilots do better when we engage early and align our scope language with a business plan that rewards our participation.

Demand based scope negotiations tend to fail.

Since web boards seem to respond better to negative history than positive plans - lets consider contract 2000. The Delta pilots ostensibly improved scope with a 34% limit on DCI flying. The negotiating team says they were unaware of the largest jet order in history, though it was reported everywhere.

Bombardier, Delta Connection Carriers SignLargest Regional Aircraft Transaction in History

So, it was simple for a web board warrior like me to draw a straight line for the Delta fleet (which was likely going to be a downward trend due to the retirement of inefficient 727's). Then draw a line based on Delta's capex for progress payments on the RJ's (18 month lead time) and see where those two lines intersect. At that point (about six months into C2000) either Delta was going to violate it's scope, or breach DCI's huuuge airplane order.

The two lines crossed at 6 months after the ratification of C2K.

The Comair pilots freaked out and started the RJDC. As they sought money to defend "their" airplane order they called Bombardier for help. The French Canadians stated they could not talk about it, but look at our financial reports ... nous sont payés.

Moral of the story ... the scope was politically popular, demand based, and it failed to protect anyone's jobs. .. and all this was figured out before September 11th.

Somehow that DCI order should have been dealt with before C2K's inevitable scope failure. IMHO the best way was a merger, Delta would have hired instead of furloughed. Again, tribalism and politics trumps unity & job protections (grrrr).

Now post-merger, ALPA was proactive, getting their scope demands (full employment of Delta pilots) worked into the business plan on the front end. While the airline was considerably overstaffed nobody got furloughed. Sailingfun did a good job explaining C2012 (I voted against) but he is exactly correct.

Moving forward to today, in a perfect World (from a scope perspective) we would have had a contract last year, grow the Virgin JV's widebody flying share, and have a AeroMexico JV pretty well agreed to by last spring. We would be finishing strategic work to engage on C18.

Instead, Aeromexico is growing (and setting a higher baseline) while we sit in an NMB imposed time out. We are missing opportunities because we are so inwardly focused.

D Mantooth

Yeah, but look how tough we are! Have I shown you my lanyard?

Great assessment.

Free Bird

Nothing personal BB, I have a hard time understanding your writing style, although I am slow.

Are you saying in a perfect world Virgin would grow their amount of WB flying? And going back to having a contract last year, can you explain to me how changing our AF/KLM metrics to block hours would of benefited our pilot group.

Frankly, any relaxation of our WB scope and or loss of WB jobs and I'm more than likely a NO vote. I don't think I'm alone on that, DALPA needs to first and foremost protect our jobs, especially the highest paying and most efficient ones.

Scoop

Yeah _ I am confused too. In one post he says we shouldn't traded PS about which I agree with him. In another post he says we could be preparing for C2018 - that would be nice but as we know this is not a perfect world.

The only way we could be preparing for 2018 is if we did trade PS - thus my confusion. But I must admit his posts positively contribute to the discourse.

Scoop

Bucking Bar

Sorry if that was unclear. The brain runs faster than I can type. Should read "grow our share of the Virgin JV" meaning specifically, move our 68% share to 70% to account for the deficit the company wants in 1 P.4. (the Air France/KLM JV). Win for us because we would grow our share of widebody flying inside the global JV that Delta has the most control over.

While I did not support the change in PS, nor do I support it now, I am not a one issue voter.

GogglesPisano

So, if 9/11 had never happened, what would have come of that RJ order/scope violation?

Bucking Bar

The company would have violated C2K scope regardless; it was a mathematical certainty.

One negotiator for the company told me that Leo Mullin fully intended to breach C2K before it was signed. The people on ALPA's side of the table expected management to act in good faith (which is reasonable). Several books on the subject indicate Delta's management was not really in control of the company and became very reactive. I may never have all my questions answered. Whether it was incompetence, or intentional, the management side of the table fell apart after C2K.

Unfortunately some in Sr. ALPA leadership do not believe scope can, or should, be enforced, outside the grievance process. Some believe "all scope does is get you a seat at the table" and that is how they run things. This is why we continue to have such a battle internally over the Scope Compliance & Analysis Committee.

In any event, we should use the power of Section 1 to look at the company's commercial agreements and ensure our scope makes sense. Ideally, we would be engaged on the front end to agree on a business plan which benefits the Delta pilots. This is "proactive engagement." Yes, it is very unpopular. I see a role for a smart, engaged, union. At our best we find the right balance.

kobaracing1

--Has the fact that dal is a business changed, other than bankruptcy, in the last 25yrs. If dal network were the best network mgt in the world, and an alpa expert in a created network/scope position says that the next 'scope ask' is good for the dal pilot, is the fact that there is no progression and fewer seats more 'irrelevant'?--

--Has the quantity/quality of dal jobs seen improvement because of a great contract or the environment changed? Is this because dal pilots engaged or is it because dal's pricing power changed since dal declared 'we have no pricing power' way back when.--

--When dal wanted to flood the market with 50seaters, with sales help from mgt pilots, they wanted to make money with that business model, with that economic environment. The environment changed, the dal passenger couldn't take the RJ punishment on 50seaters, now cnx flights, etc, so dal pilots get the wiz bang mini-me nb jobs. So this is proactive engagement or dal following the right business path by demanding dalpa allow the contract to match the business direction. Do we not get this information during negotiations, during closed dal mgt/dalpa meetings, from the dalpa board member? I don't know, but it would make sense to me.

Dal mgt is gonna whack you in the contract to get to whatever number they need, WB or NB. The creation of more proactive engagement positions helps protect quantity/quality of dal jobs how? I think maybe it is a knee jerk reaction to last summer. Do we not have dalpa engagement with normal closed meetings with dal mgt and a dal board member? Is a dalpa Scope Czar the answer to the TA2015 smackdown?--

--Simpleminded demand based...? I believe your argument discounts more economic based business changes, not a blind dal pilot majority. I think one of the jobs of the agent in a pwa negotiation is to protect quantity/quality of dal jobs, creating another insider 'pilot mgt' position with no oversight continues the problem 65% of the pilots spoke out on last year.--

--There's a lot the dal pilots are not privy to, I believe that should change first. If I could trust another alpa based creation that is supposedly in the best interest of the dal pilot, I might agree with you.--

(Posted in a dehydrated state in high 90 temps, no offense intended in this post, just opinion)

satchip

So if your first assertion is true, aren't there legal remedies for our CB Agent to follow to enforce our contract? If a Company signs two contracts in conflict with each other who's wins? Is one to be considered to be in bad faith and thus subject to legal sanctions?

Your second paragraph states that some in ALPA leadership don't think scope can be enforced. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THERE FOR THEN?!!??
Doesn't that lend credence to those who want to decertify ALPA and find another Collective Bargaining Agent?

Your third paragraph seems to me like you are saying our contract should be malleable to align itself to whatever business plan whim current management has. How then is that a "contract"? How is that beneficial to the rank and file union member? How is that Unionism that you used to espouse?

If you decide to answer please refrain from trying to separate us as "tribes". People within the same organization can have differing views and still have the same goals, the betterment of the group and it's members.