gloopy

The trend of 3% going in favor of mainline is because of 50 seaters, of wich the company could fly a billion of if they wanted to, being parked merely because the company chooses to park them because of their economics. They are not 50 seaters migrating from the outsource providers to mainline, they are 50 seaters being parked because they don't work well in the network anymore. If an outsource provider was once allowed to fly 707's for DL they would have been parked years ago regardless. That "trend" is irrelevant because what is causing that trend is irrelevant. Lots of smaller RJ's are being parked because they are not economical for anyone to fly them, but larger RJ's are still being ordered and CPA's funding direct fare trashing and CBA eroding competitors are still being inked. I find no solace in that.

AA's trend is very few 70 seaters and no 76 seaters. CAL is no jet over 50 (post merger battle in progress). SWA is no RJ's by pilot scope and corporate mission. UAL trend is unlimited 70's but no 76's (I believe) and torch the shareholders to the ground rhetoric that may just be an empty table opener, but at least they are bringing it up loud and proud, for now.

I will take your word for that you hear various reps saying to you. I have heard very, very, very little WRT scope from leaders other than how great it is that RJ's are being parked (objection: irrelevant, see above). I would like to hear a loud and clear focus on that and the silence is deafening. Maybe someone says something at a meeting here or there. But even if so, that is not enough. But in any case I am far more worried about C12K than I am about carefuly crafted rhetoric approved by natl legal. We shall see.

johnso29

We should be happy 50 seaters are being parked, because Large RJ's are limited to 255. That's a MASSIVE decrease in DCI flying as the 50 seaters continue to get parked.

In regards to CAL's scope, ask how happy CAL pilots are as they watch 737 routes be replaced by Q400's. And would you really have UNLIMITED 70 seaters in exchange for no 76 seaters? APA just lost a grievance in arbitration which allowed an additional 22 CRJ-700's to increase their total to over 40. Thats in addition to their 200+ ERJ's and 35+ ATR 72's.

It's OUR job as DAL pilots to take it back. People want to sit here and blame ALPA, but we are the ones that ratify the TA. Volunteer for P2P, chew your Reps ears off, and attend Coucil meetings. If we want action then we must take action.

scambo1

Reps can say (verbally) anything they want...it is hollow.

When they put it in writing, that is when you can tell they are serious...subject to change of course...lines in the sand and all.

Carl Spackler

Agree 100%

Carl

Carl Spackler

We may have to do just that johnso. I'm increasingly convinced that our reps and the MEC chairman do not consider our current Scope a problem. They are hoping against hope that the majority of pilots "read" their near silence on the subject as: "Don't worry, we elected leaders agree with you...just as long as you don't ask us any details."

The action we may need to take is to recall every LEC leader that does not sign a written pledge stating that pilot job outsourcing must be reversed starting with this upcoming contract. Are you up for that kind of action? I am.

Carl

Splash

I agree. I'm positive that you're convinced. Fortunately, your state of mind doesn't reflect the actual situation. You believe that we only elect pilots who don't care about Scope. I'm glad you're wrong.

And Loyalty Oaths! Make them sign those too...in BLOOD! Then make them put their kids in escrow in case they break their written pledge.

You'll have to designate someone to monitor compliance though, because YOU don't seem to be very good at hearing and reading how you reps feel about Scope.

I think you're up for watching that kind of action.

But please, please, please, PLEASE get on that. Call every pilot you know...collect $50 from them...hire Seham to spend that money, and tell you how awesome you are...go to your LEC meeting...and recall your reps.

Report back to us on how that goes.

tsquare

Your arrogance and condescension does nothing to bolster your case. Are you a rep? Nevermind, you wouldn't have the stones to admit it if you were...

Sink r8

Telling Splash he's arrogant and condescending in a reply to Carl is like telling one of two pitbulls in a fight to stop because it's too aggressive.

I agree that some of the viewpoints presented by pro-ALPA people are sometimes obnoxious and pedantic, but if you're going to be the referee on matters of arrogance, you're going to have to step in a lot more often.

You're going to have buy some muzzles.

Splash

It's sarcasm. I'm hardly in the top ten of sarcasm slingers here.

No. I've done a fair bit of ALPA work, but I am not a rep.

I have stones. They are small, but they're rock hard.

What's next? Weenie measuring?

tsquare

You bore me. You used the same little trick of "sarcasm" on one of my posts... Oh, and if they are rock hard, you might want to get them checked.. could be cancer.