Delta Pilots Association
01-02-2011, 01:46 PM
#3841
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl;
The debate of scope has many sides. Many say take back the flying, some say do not sell the 76+ seat market, and some say these jets are place holders for larger small jets.
If you take all of these positions and stop for a second you can start to see something. All of them have a want. They want more flying to be ours. I also see a few facts.
1) The current RJ's are last gen, and will not be around in ten years due to inefficency and size
2) They are in fact place holders for a next gen jet that gives us the CASM desired for mainline operations
3) With these new jets being designed and in some cases manufactured, it makes sense to hold the line with the commitments you and I describe and allow attrition of the Last Gen Technology jets take old. Hold the proverbial 76 seat line, take back the flying with a commitment of no new contracts, and over time as the next gen jets show up on our list without any cost allocated to the recapture. (Our side or theirs)
Refusing to budge on any more small jet scope sales will in effect cause DCI to shrink and possible disappear as these contracts expire. The smart unionist realizes that DAL will still need the network feed to feed the route system, and will find and offer a plan to management that benefits us the pilots on the Delta list as well as the company. That does not mean a scope sale or give back, it means a plan that benefits us with a larger list and more options, and a structure that allows Delta the agility to have a route network that can compete with the competition.
Taking the 76 seat and below flying back is very important for unity of our product and trade. From all of the options I have listened to the idea of getting a commitment for no new contracts, and letting existing contracts expire much like UALALPA is doing is the way to go. It allows the company to complete its financial commitments to the ASA providers, and over time brings the flying, not a specific aircraft size back in to the mainline mix. The two things that need to be done are the commitment from the company and not allowing more than 76 seats at DCI. The issue takes care of itself with no cost to the pilot group.
The debate of scope has many sides. Many say take back the flying, some say do not sell the 76+ seat market, and some say these jets are place holders for larger small jets.
If you take all of these positions and stop for a second you can start to see something. All of them have a want. They want more flying to be ours. I also see a few facts.
1) The current RJ's are last gen, and will not be around in ten years due to inefficency and size
2) They are in fact place holders for a next gen jet that gives us the CASM desired for mainline operations
3) With these new jets being designed and in some cases manufactured, it makes sense to hold the line with the commitments you and I describe and allow attrition of the Last Gen Technology jets take old. Hold the proverbial 76 seat line, take back the flying with a commitment of no new contracts, and over time as the next gen jets show up on our list without any cost allocated to the recapture. (Our side or theirs)
Refusing to budge on any more small jet scope sales will in effect cause DCI to shrink and possible disappear as these contracts expire. The smart unionist realizes that DAL will still need the network feed to feed the route system, and will find and offer a plan to management that benefits us the pilots on the Delta list as well as the company. That does not mean a scope sale or give back, it means a plan that benefits us with a larger list and more options, and a structure that allows Delta the agility to have a route network that can compete with the competition.
Taking the 76 seat and below flying back is very important for unity of our product and trade. From all of the options I have listened to the idea of getting a commitment for no new contracts, and letting existing contracts expire much like UALALPA is doing is the way to go. It allows the company to complete its financial commitments to the ASA providers, and over time brings the flying, not a specific aircraft size back in to the mainline mix. The two things that need to be done are the commitment from the company and not allowing more than 76 seats at DCI. The issue takes care of itself with no cost to the pilot group.
Now, I believe our greatest struggle will be in fighting our own union leadership and ALPA national to this end.
Carl
01-02-2011, 01:49 PM
#3843
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
We already took massive cuts based on "the state of the industry." I'm done with massive cuts. We did our part. Actually, more than our part as we continue to be paid BK/emergency rates YEARS after the BK/emergency have been over. The loan is due. I'm not the least bit interested in tying our compensation going forward to "the state of the industry." So, as you should be able to figure out, I don't think we need any "education" on the state of the industry. We've given them billions of dollars, in the process destroying our plans for our careers and our families financial futures, and they've had plenty of time to use that to the best benefit they could. The loan is due. It's as simple as that. They can find some other way to subsidize their mistakes.
01-02-2011, 01:53 PM
#3844
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I don't know about DAL88, but that's not how I'm reading his words. I'm reading it as: "the pilots shall educate the MEC as to what they will require in the next contract." That way, there will be no surprises in the TA, because the pilots will have been the ones to educate the MEC.
Carl
Carl
01-02-2011, 02:03 PM
#3845
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Translation: Lowering expectations.
We already took massive cuts based on "the state of the industry." I'm done with massive cuts. We did our part. Actually, more than our part as we continue to be paid BK/emergency rates YEARS after the BK/emergency have been over. The loan is due. I'm not the least bit interested in tying our compensation going forward to "the state of the industry." So, as you should be able to figure out, I don't think we need any "education" on the state of the industry. We've given them billions of dollars, in the process destroying our plans for our careers and our families financial futures, and they've had plenty of time to use that to the best benefit they could. The loan is due. It's as simple as that. They can find some other way to subsidize their mistakes.
We already took massive cuts based on "the state of the industry." I'm done with massive cuts. We did our part. Actually, more than our part as we continue to be paid BK/emergency rates YEARS after the BK/emergency have been over. The loan is due. I'm not the least bit interested in tying our compensation going forward to "the state of the industry." So, as you should be able to figure out, I don't think we need any "education" on the state of the industry. We've given them billions of dollars, in the process destroying our plans for our careers and our families financial futures, and they've had plenty of time to use that to the best benefit they could. The loan is due. It's as simple as that. They can find some other way to subsidize their mistakes.
Carl
01-02-2011, 03:37 PM
#3846
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
In any case, if not one single new agreement is inked in the meantime, and we do indeed get binding agreements to phase out all such outsourcing at the first available opportunity, then I will begin to entertain the possibility that "they get it" they being our union leadership as well as the company who supposedly doesn't like these planes and wants more mainline planes or nextgen vaporware or whatever.
01-02-2011, 08:31 PM
#3847
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
TSH can have options and orders for whatever they want. DAL can pay them a service fee to hold the note. I really do not care what accounting practices they use, every rep I have talked to has said they have no stomach for a scope sale.
If I got any inclination of that, I would tell you, and I do not.
If I got any inclination of that, I would tell you, and I do not.
01-03-2011, 05:14 AM
#3848
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
I completely agree with Carl.
ALPA National represents DALPA, but they also represent regional pilots at numerous carriers, some of them DCI. How does DALPA get ALPA National's blessing on a contract that though beneficial to Delta pilots is disastrous to the regional pilots?
That's a serious question. Please provide a serious answer.
01-03-2011, 06:06 AM
#3849
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL,
I completely agree with Carl.
ALPA National represents DALPA, but they also represent regional pilots at numerous carriers, some of them DCI. How does DALPA get ALPA National's blessing on a contract that though beneficial to Delta pilots is disastrous to the regional pilots?
That's a serious question. Please provide a serious answer.
I completely agree with Carl.
ALPA National represents DALPA, but they also represent regional pilots at numerous carriers, some of them DCI. How does DALPA get ALPA National's blessing on a contract that though beneficial to Delta pilots is disastrous to the regional pilots?
That's a serious question. Please provide a serious answer.
We negotiate our contract, ALPA National signs it, and there is no way ALPA National and LM will not sign our contract. The correct thing to do for the pilot profession is unity. When we invariably take these jobs back, we will need more bodies, and those positions should be filled by ALPA pilots. How and what you do for them can be determined, but the positions need to be filled by those same pilots. That is unity, and unity solves all issues.
The conflict many see at national is not a policy conflict but a perceived conflict. Has National been too regional focused, yes. Do they need to change that? Yes, but not one contract at a major has not been signed because of wording in the contract.
Contracts and what is in them are between the local MEC's and their companies. ALPA National and the President sign the PWA/CBA but we put in it what we want. Can national offer advice or try to persuade us? Of course, but frankly, I do not see one rep on our Current MEC Council using negotiating capital to help our RJ guys. Period. It is frankly all about us!
01-03-2011, 06:32 AM
#3850
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired 121 pilot
Posts: 1,033
Another FWIW is that I believe that ALPA needs to "split up" into two separate unions, between the majors and regional airlines. It's JMHO, but I think the split is too wide and the goals to diverse for ALPA national to properly serve both groups.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
