New Delta scope thread
02-27-2009, 07:57 AM
#72
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
This is like Coex circa 2001 all over again. The MEC will boot the CPZ guys off the MEC because they are "regional" guys. The company will then sell CPZ and the flow provision will be cancelled because they are no longer a wholly owned company. It will be much easier to capture the CPZ flying now than it will after they are sold. Asking the MEC to "study" the issue only gives the company more time to sell the place.
I guarantee you that ALPA and the company know exactly what it would save or cost to bring CPZ to mainline. The study should take about two hours to put into a PDF and be e-mailed to all of us. Why am I willing to bet they will study this until CPZ is sold and then not release any of the information?
I guarantee you that ALPA and the company know exactly what it would save or cost to bring CPZ to mainline. The study should take about two hours to put into a PDF and be e-mailed to all of us. Why am I willing to bet they will study this until CPZ is sold and then not release any of the information?
That is the majority of the thrust behind resolution. "Report Back"
02-27-2009, 08:52 AM
#73
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
This is like Coex circa 2001 all over again. The MEC will boot the CPZ guys off the MEC because they are "regional" guys. The company will then sell CPZ and the flow provision will be cancelled because they are no longer a wholly owned company. It will be much easier to capture the CPZ flying now than it will after they are sold. Asking the MEC to "study" the issue only gives the company more time to sell the place.
I guarantee you that ALPA and the company know exactly what it would save or cost to bring CPZ to mainline. The study should take about two hours to put into a PDF and be e-mailed to all of us. Why am I willing to bet they will study this until CPZ is sold and then not release any of the information?
I guarantee you that ALPA and the company know exactly what it would save or cost to bring CPZ to mainline. The study should take about two hours to put into a PDF and be e-mailed to all of us. Why am I willing to bet they will study this until CPZ is sold and then not release any of the information?
02-27-2009, 08:59 AM
#74
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Correct, there are teeth to this flow that are peppered in different sections of the contract. There is a very big downside to get rid of it.
Fact is, that from a DAL management perspective, it makes a lot of sense to bring em on. Why? Because of cost savings and control of the pilot product that will be on mainline one way or another. (They know this, and do not like the current flow agreements. It is a new territory for DAL)
Fact is, that from a DAL management perspective, it makes a lot of sense to bring em on. Why? Because of cost savings and control of the pilot product that will be on mainline one way or another. (They know this, and do not like the current flow agreements. It is a new territory for DAL)
02-27-2009, 09:53 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,903
Correct, there are teeth to this flow that are peppered in different sections of the contract. There is a very big downside to get rid of it.
Fact is, that from a DAL management perspective, it makes a lot of sense to bring em on. Why? Because of cost savings and control of the pilot product that will be on mainline one way or another. (They know this, and do not like the current flow agreements. It is a new territory for DAL)
Fact is, that from a DAL management perspective, it makes a lot of sense to bring em on. Why? Because of cost savings and control of the pilot product that will be on mainline one way or another. (They know this, and do not like the current flow agreements. It is a new territory for DAL)
Not only that, but it brings possibility of the 195 to the mainline property by running a common type. It is a good economic incentive to get a 100 seater on the property while the C series gestates.
Nu
02-27-2009, 10:25 AM
#76
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Yes, it does. And one thing that people need to realize is we are on a thin line with this 76 seat line in the sand. The 175 can and is certified to 88 passengers. We could fly that aircraft to its fullest capacity here at mainline. Keeping even 76 seats as a scope limit makes it even more economically viable to fly these airframes with mainline list.
I know some naysayers will state that the CRJ-900 is certified to 86 seats. That is correct. We need to make absolutely certain that we recapture or never all allow the seat scope limit to increase. It is always a fight in negotiations. We need to decrease it, and will do what we can.
Remember though that Ford-Cooksey settlement will pose issues since that is what EV and OH fly. Now, I see some possibilities happening there.
Just to scenarioize. Lets say they merge CPZ and OH together, then we have a real mess. Just think about that. IMHO time is of the essence, and we need to deal with this now. The possible changes to the Ford-Cooksey settlement would be disasterous for taking back scope.
I know some naysayers will state that the CRJ-900 is certified to 86 seats. That is correct. We need to make absolutely certain that we recapture or never all allow the seat scope limit to increase. It is always a fight in negotiations. We need to decrease it, and will do what we can.
Remember though that Ford-Cooksey settlement will pose issues since that is what EV and OH fly. Now, I see some possibilities happening there.
Just to scenarioize. Lets say they merge CPZ and OH together, then we have a real mess. Just think about that. IMHO time is of the essence, and we need to deal with this now. The possible changes to the Ford-Cooksey settlement would be disasterous for taking back scope.
02-27-2009, 11:16 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Yes, it does. And one thing that people need to realize is we are on a thin line with this 76 seat line in the sand. The 175 can and is certified to 88 passengers. We could fly that aircraft to its fullest capacity here at mainline. Keeping even 76 seats as a scope limit makes it even more economically viable to fly these airframes with mainline list.
I know some naysayers will state that the CRJ-900 is certified to 86 seats. That is correct. We need to make absolutely certain that we recapture or never all allow the seat scope limit to increase. It is always a fight in negotiations. We need to decrease it, and will do what we can.
Remember though that Ford-Cooksey settlement will pose issues since that is what EV and OH fly. Now, I see some possibilities happening there.
Just to scenarioize. Lets say they merge CPZ and OH together, then we have a real mess. Just think about that. IMHO time is of the essence, and we need to deal with this now. The possible changes to the Ford-Cooksey settlement would be disasterous for taking back scope.
I know some naysayers will state that the CRJ-900 is certified to 86 seats. That is correct. We need to make absolutely certain that we recapture or never all allow the seat scope limit to increase. It is always a fight in negotiations. We need to decrease it, and will do what we can.
Remember though that Ford-Cooksey settlement will pose issues since that is what EV and OH fly. Now, I see some possibilities happening there.
Just to scenarioize. Lets say they merge CPZ and OH together, then we have a real mess. Just think about that. IMHO time is of the essence, and we need to deal with this now. The possible changes to the Ford-Cooksey settlement would be disasterous for taking back scope.
02-27-2009, 11:38 AM
#78
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Delta management likes the first class seats. We can fly every aircraft in the fleet with more seats and take out first class. The feel they generate more revenue with first class then more overall seats in the aircraft. we have tried the one class flying several times at Delta and it never offset the lost revenue the big seats generate. If we get the airframes at the mainline I don't think they will add any seats.
I agree, with that, but it does not take off the pressure for management to force the issue in regards to DCI and our scope limits set out in Section 1 of the JPWA.
Because they can put seats in the jet they will want to raise the seat limit. It does not mean that they will in this jet, it just means that the 195 can then be flow with 88 seat in it. I know, I know if is over the max gross weight limit, but hey if they get the seats they want they will get the gross weight limit they want to. Suffice to say where we are in relation to seat scope, and aircraft size is a very slippery slope. These jets are not self limiting like the 50 seat and 70 seat jets are.
The E-series has a variant that can take 120 or so people 4000 miles. Now do we want that at DCI? I don't and that is exactly where it is going given our current trend vector.
02-27-2009, 04:31 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: E-170 Airbender
Posts: 341
What if RAH captains flying the Delta 175s and interviewed and didn't pass. What happens to them? Tough luck for them? I don't think so...
I'm all for taking these jets back to mainline but since it was the majors that caused this problem in the 1st place, simply taking the planes back and saying so sorry "regional" pilots, you have to interview and get in line. Well simply put.... F you for being so selfish and not thinking of your regional brothers and sisters! I have to provide for my family too and now I have to be punished by past pilots mistakes of eroding scope.
And for the record, I haven't interviewed at any major yet. I do not feel comftorable moving on with all the crap going on in the world.
I don't know how you ment that comment Nu but just saying my peace.
Off my soapbox.
02-27-2009, 04:39 PM
#80
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Who owns the planes? RAH or Delta? If Delta, they can take them back and give them to anyone thay want, pilots don't follow them. If RAH owns them, they can cancel the contract and pick up any airframes they want to buy from anyone selling them. It's not going to happen, so don't worry about it. As for your statement about remaining a captain, that is why it won't work.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
