Reroute

He changed the definition of permitted aircraft from certificated to configured. A large concession.

sailingfun

That may have been the change. Prior to LOA46 the E170 was not permitted. We kept the 69 seat restriction but it was easy to see they would want a normal seat layout. I spoke personally to JM about giving up that airframe.

DAL 88 Driver

Again, we were talking about C2K. My post was in regard to that. Try to keep up, buddy.

Alan Shore

I don't believe that there is ever a good reason to stop debating the issue. Sometimes, changing the subject (to DPA, in this case) may be nothing more than questioning the agenda of the other guy.

I disagree with that strategy regard of who does it.

DAL 88 Driver

I was debating tsquare on the concept of restoration. He says it's not possible. I say it is possible but will be more difficult now because of the precedent and expectations DALPA has set over the past 10 years.

He responded as follows:

I rest my case.

gloopy

It was a concession, but the GW limits did serve as somewhat of a backstop. Otherwise they'd be experimenting left and right with all first class configs in much larger planes just because they could.

Some scope clauses even have "below floor cargo capability" as a limiting factor. Certificated seats is an important metric, but if that's the only limit any company can just pay for paperwork to reduce the seat limits to what they want to install and get around it that way. That's why we need many restrictive ways to control it. C2012 had some scope concessions but one of the bright spots was including turboprops. We may never know if they would have gone down that road at some point at DCI, but they had the ability to have unlimited 70 seat props off list. Its still unlimtied 35 (or 37?) seat props, but that sucks a lot less and is less likely to happen.

I expect absolutely zero relief in C2015 for any DCI outsourcing. No added certificated seat limits, actual seat numbers, weights, additional airframes or anything else raised or waived to provide them relief in any form. And I expect some tangible level of DCI reduction with, at the very least, some form of sunsetting to reduce the number of seats and airframes at DCI without allowing anything larger there ever. And that includes the bogus seperate certificate tricks and code share tricks with mainline sized "RJ's" at DCI carriers that have hundreds of albatross jets on firm order with no one to fly them for. That's not our problem; let them eat CapEx and debt and bleed RASM all over the floor. Its not our place to enable the regional CEO megalomaniacs.

Carl Spackler

That is the essence of the divide amongst our pilot group. Those that believe in this strategy and those that do not. But your above statement is incomplete and is typical of the pro Moak strategy folks. You agree with the strategy because it has put more in your pocket. Fine. But shouldn't the real statement be: " I believe that Moak's constructive engagement strategy has generally put more money and time off into our pockets since 2005 compared to any other strategy."

It has to be a comparative analysis doesn't it? Otherwise you'd be happy with a strategy of massive concessions in every other area of the contract, except pay and time off because it put more money and time off into our pockets. The real question is whether constructive engagement put the most into our pockets as compared to other strategies. That's the question that divides us.

My opinion is that constructive engagement was proper as we staggered out of bankruptcy, but was/is totally improper as our labor/management partnership began to bear the financial fruit. It is at that time the strategy should have shifted to restoration. But it didn't. We stayed the course with constructive engagement. We are still below our pre-bankruptcy wages while every other employee group at Delta has been restored. Constructive engagement had its time and place, but it's no longer applicable.

Mike Donatelli doesn't mean that for one second. It's pure political pablum. But if anyone is serious about it, you are certainly correct that we will have to be "significantly more aggressive" this time around (to use your term) above and beyond constructive engagement.

Carl

tsquare

What are "we" still doing then?

Carl Spackler

This ALPA president and Delta MEC chairman does have goals, objectives and strategies. They just can't communicate them the way Richard can and John Malone did because they know the pilot group would decertify ALPA if they found out.

Make no mistake however that they believe in the exact same process that DAL88Driver has been espousing for years. DALPA proved it with DPA. DALPA and Mr. Moak set the objective of destroying DPA. Then they developed strategies to achieve the objective. Then they employed the tactics of funding the Special Committee to the tune of $100,000 plus to use any and all measures to achieve the objective. That's how it's done if you want to win something. ALPA has shown that they believe in and understand that time proven process. They are employing that exact same process with the future of our profession. We just don't know what their objective is because Moak's hallmark is to never let the truth out until its too late for you to change it. As a loyal Moak disciple, Tim Cannoll will be the exact same kind of ALPA president.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Who has ever said that tsquare? What survey or Wilson polling data has ever shown that waiting for restoration (or any good thing for that matter) is unacceptable to Delta pilots? You're certainly correct in that the MEC administration is behaving as though the pilot group has stated this as its majority opinion, but Delta pilots haven't done that.

You have no idea whether a "statistically significant" part of the group is happy or discontented. Thus your opinion of why they didn't do the survey is...well, opinion.

Translation: Time value of money trumps all. Getting whatever management is willing to give immediately is better than waiting. That's your theory tsquare and we all get that. The only question is how much of the rest of the pilot group agrees with you. The MEC administration definitely agrees with you.

Carl