tomgoodman

Alfaromeo, that was a good historical analysis. I used to think that ALPA and the major carriers goofed by not "capturing" all the regional flying for themselves from day one, but now I'm not so sure it could have been done or would have made any difference. Deregulation just made it too easy for new drillers to tap into what used to be our exclusive "oil lease", and there's only so much oil. Thousands of new pilot jobs were created, but at the expense of the relative few who were (or would have become) the lucky ones under regulation. Perhaps wages could be forced back up, but only by a pilot shortage or re-regulation, and I don't see either one happening.

acl65pilot

That is not what I have said. What I said was if we have not farmed out any of this flying after 9-11, I would be looking at upgrade now. I do not have an issue being an FO. I like the job, and plan to stay in this position long after I can upgrade. It is not about being a CA, it is about options that would be available if we had not continued to slide on scope. I also would have been able to come over here a long time before this, if we would have not had such an erosion of scope.
That was the point, not that I want your job.

acl65pilot

I think this is where the misconception lies. We are not looking for there to be more 737's, though that would be nice. The company needs to have the ability to put the correct jet on the route, I agree with that. My goal is not to make these "RJ's" cost prohibitive. My goal is what you even admit and mention as a possibility. You can maybe get the RJ pilots to change uniforms and now are mainline pilots. That is the goal. One unified pilot group under one list, and one contract. Even you admit that this is a possibility. That is what we are working towards.

I fully admit that there will always be regional airlines. What I am looking to do is roll back the scope on the seat size we allow contract carriers to fly. I do not want to scope by type certificate either. That will be the death nail in our narrow body gauge. We as a group, and looking to get the majority of this flying recaptured and flown by we the Delta pilots.

It is not anger or malice. I place blame on all of us. We continually vote for it. It always is an overall good deal and the scope is the only real thorn. We all decide it is Ok given the gains. It has just been this way for far too long.

As for economic analysis. I believe that many people have been giving it. A lot of the data is skewed, because of how and what we has the parent company pay for with these DCI carriers. The fact is that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on guaranteed margins for these DCI carriers. That is profit that we at DAL could be making with the flying done in house.
I get that we have contracts that in some instances go for another 13 years. I think it would be quite simple to state that once these contracts expire scoped flying would then come back in house.

Is it a lofty goal? Yes, but it is one that needs to be fought. We have for far to long let it be the one issue we will cave in on. As the DC-9 goes away we have no mainline replacement for it. "Nothing works." Well I think that the E-series and C-series are good answers to this. Heck even the CRJ-900 and 1000 would be a good answer to it, if flown by mainline.

I just want to know, and I ask this humbly, "Why is scope not an issue that if fought for tooth and nail."

Superpilot92

Actually Slowplay, ACL NAILED IT!!

FIGHTING FOR SCOPE IS CRUCIAL! LOOK AT MIDWEST and UAL!! DOES THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN AT DAL BEFORE SOME OF YOU GUYS WAKE UP TO THIS? THERE IS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT OUTSOURCING OUR JOBS, UPGRADES, AND CAREER EARNINGS!!

Trogdor

I applaud what the AA pilots are doing, but my question is this: How can they get away with admitting they are going to cause disruptions? Wouldn't this constitute illegal job action? I can understand doing it "under the radar" so-to-speak where you cause disruptions, and there is no way for the company to trace it back to anyone. So, how are they getting away with this?

alfaromeo

I think that APA is trying to influence the NMB to release them. What they are saying is, "If you release us, we won't strike, we will just make American management unhappy." If they are released then they are free to seek self help, up to and including a strike. American management is also free to impose new conditions on the pilots.

alfaromeo

Scope is important, but RJ flying is not all of scope and RJ flying is not any more important than any other section of our contract. It may be to you, but there are 12,400 pilots and they all don't have the same priorities as you. So my answer back is what section of the contract should not be fought for tooth and nail.

I am with you on recapturing the 70-76 flying. If you can't tell, I have been thinking about this for a long time. It won't happen overnight, it won't happen this year, and it may take a long time. That's why I say you would be better off concentrating on building a business case and less time making LEC resolutions and web board postings.

This will be solved as a business decision (think brand management and cost control) and not an industrial decision. There are lots of issues to work through to get from A to B. Identify those issues and identify solutions to those issues. If you are willing to fight tooth and nail, then work on that.

Rhino Driver

Have you written your reps today???

forgot to bid

I got to love the discussion with ALPA reps in JFK... I guess to some pilots scope should be about limiting the fact an RJ can taxi in front of you rather than limiting the rj. I don't think I could be a rep and deal with people complaining about that out of all things.

And I'd love to have the seniority not to care that the 732s that we got rid of and the DC9s that we'll eventually park will be replaced by a whole bunch of large RJs and a sprinkle of MD90s. But I don't have that seniority and neither does a good portion of this airline.

I think I speak for a few people here who don't give a damn if E175 A pay is below 767 B nor do we care if we get to go from B to A in short order. What I care about is whether I'll have a job and right now, I don't think I will but someone flying a plane we should be flying will. To me its about sticking it to DALPA to get them to figure out how to handle it with DAL, not sticking it to DAL.

Bucking Bar

OK, lets play. I like this game
This part I don't get. You say you support bringing the flying back, but then very eloquently outline all the reasons we should not and politely explain this about a bunch of junior snot noses just wanting a fourth stripe. (nailed me by the way )

It is a matter of priorities. What is more important than scope? Scope is the only reason the Company abides by the rest of the contract. Otherwise they would just "farm your job out."

First of all, Compass is 88 seat flying, not 76 seats. 76 is a subjective "line in the sand" that is just as likely to be washed away by the economic tides as the other lines in the sand that preceded this one. When the crap hits the fan, what's our track record? In 2001 it was 34%, then it was 37%, then 50% and when it got too ugly to look at we took out the Section 1 limits on block all together. Reports are that the number now exceeds 60%.Our "friends" know our history and realize scope by Type Certificates is a whole lot more objective. They want that 88 seat jet as a bridge to 122 seats. If you look a couple of moves ahead in the chess game, the importance of the Embraer comes into focus.We are a union. We need to focus on labor issues. The only question we control the answer to is who flies the airplane. We really don't have a dog in the fight of whether a 767 replaces a 747, or a RJ replaces a DC9. Our #1 job as a union is to ensure our pilots are at the controls. If it has a Delta logo on it, I want a Delta pilot flying it.How about we let management run the airline and try to get our union to focus on labor issues?

I'm not being critical of the MEC, they have handled the merger brilliantly. They have been smart to partner with management when it makes sense. However, the foundation of their power is unionism. Outsourcing attacks that foundation and reduces their power.

The argument that "we don't want RJ's because their pay stinks" is very short sighted. Pay lasts only as long as the next contract. We need a longer term strategic vision (particularly since we are not in Section 6, or even close to it right now, we don't know what the pay issue will be three to four years from now)

If we divest Compass, the opportunity to capture, up to 122 seats is at risk. Further, we will have created another Comair with its own representational demands and you can be sure they will want more than 36 jets. They will also join the Comair pilots in demanding a raise on the 76 seat cap because that is the business case for their pay. We don't need more enemies at meetings of ALPA's Collective Bargaining Committee, or Scope Oversight group.

I understand you being concerned about the pay rates. My response, don't bid the thing. The more important matter is that those are Delta jobs, under the control of the Delta MEC instead of our adversaries.