Airline Pilot Forums

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

I see here that plane sits 70-90, so up to 76 seats would be allowed up to the limit of 223 total.

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

You voted yes on yall's TA, you can't have it both ways bud. You had the chance to keep this from happening but you wasted it, thanks.

You voted yes on yall's TA, you can't have it both ways bud. You had the chance to keep this from happening but you wasted it, thanks.

Quit the grandstanding. Wikipedia says it seats 70-90. So, if it's at 76 seats, that's fine, within the scope limits set. A-okay. If they go over 76 seats, I don't think that sits well with our clause. Only Frontier via Republic is permitted to have planes over 76 seats flying for them.

In Delta's new TA, is there a weight restriction in addition to the seat restriction for DCI?

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

Wiki lists the max GW for the various models as between 81.2 and 94.3. For seating the lower end is 78 seats and up well into the 90's and beyond. I'm thinking they will be able to weasel in under our limits though. If not, the company will squeal how they can't make them abide by a contract they (SKYW) never agreed to and it would cost trillions of dollars and liquidate DAL if we enforced it so we'd grant relief anyway.

I'd LOVE to see the FFD welfare plug pulled on that operation and force them to compete (and lose badly) on real airline flying rather than leaching off of the scope clauses of other pilot groups and other brands.

Wiki lists the max GW for the various models as between 81.2 and 94.3. For seating the lower end is 78 seats and up well into the 90's and beyond. I'm thinking they will be able to weasel in under our limits though. If not, the company will squeal how they can't make them abide by a contract they (SKYW) never agreed to and it would cost trillions of dollars and liquidate DAL if we enforced it so we'd grant relief anyway.

I'd LOVE to see the FFD welfare plug pulled on that operation and force them to compete (and lose badly) on real airline flying rather than leaching off of the scope clauses of other pilot groups and other brands.


The next Indy Air. I think they should try it.

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

I see here that plane sits 70-90, so up to 76 seats would be allowed up to the limit of 223 total.

???????????

Why are you asking? Just read the contract. Its all in one paragraph.

1.B.46.f

Quit the grandstanding. Wikipedia says it seats 70-90. So, if it's at 76 seats, that's fine, within the scope limits set. A-okay. If they go over 76 seats, I don't think that sits well with our clause. Only Frontier via Republic is permitted to have planes over 76 seats flying for them.

You might want to recheck how the CRJ 900's and E-175 are operated for US Aiways, my understating is that these airplanes are operated at 79 and 80 seats respectively!

The next Indy Air. I think they should try it.

The next RAH actually. I mean the next Frontier/RAH.

We just need to add Skywest/ExpressJet and Compass/GoJet names to the bottom of 1.D.2.

Now you don't have an issue with that 1.D.2 exception, right?

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

I see here that plane sits 70-90, so up to 76 seats would be allowed up to the limit of 223 total.

Amazing how that was announced within mere days after you guys voted that contract in :eek: God, we're so gullible. :rolleyes:

Bill, what's the max allowed weight of a DCI 76 seater per the PWA?

There is language in the TA allowing Skywest to operate an aircraft in a non DCI operation that is larger than what is allowed for DCI. Just look at those limits in section 1 and look at the MRJ specs and you can figure out which variant they are allowed to operate in a non DCI operation that is larger than 76 seats.

You might want to recheck how the CRJ 900's and E-175 are operated for US Aiways, my understating is that these airplanes are operated at 79 and 80 seats respectively!

Hi, I understand that. They have more seats. But not for Delta. 76 is the limit, and there is a limit for the number of those planes too.

Amazing how that was announced within mere days after you guys voted that contract in :eek: God, we're so gullible. :rolleyes:

Really? Talk about gullible. It's called the Farnburough Air Show. That is when airlines are courted by manufacturers. That is when airlines make announcements, along with the Paris Airshow. Do you think that was all coordinated? Wow.

Bill, what's the max allowed weight of a DCI 76 seater per the PWA?

There is language in the TA allowing Skywest to operate an aircraft in a non DCI operation that is larger than what is allowed for DCI. Just look at those limits in section 1 and look at the MRJ specs and you can figure out which variant they are allowed to operate in a non DCI operation that is larger than 76 seats.

I don't think they will be allowed to fly the larger version, and certainly not for DL as feed or a code share.

In Delta's new TA, is there a weight restriction in addition to the seat restriction for DCI?

There is.

It's making me curious about Bill's airline of origin though. After all of this time his screaming that we need to pass this TA and I'm wondering if he ever was a Delta pilot.

There is.

It's making me curious about Bill's airline of origin though. After all of this time his screaming that we need to pass this TA and I'm wondering if he ever was a Delta pilot.

Hahahha. I don't have the contract on me like you do. I thought there was only one loophole for Frontier and the Republic clause. If they keep the MRJs at the smaller end, then I guess it's ok, and they'll use them at UA or AA.

Thanks for keeping the contract on your person all the time. Enjoy the raise and 717s, I will.

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

I see here that plane sits 70-90, so up to 76 seats would be allowed up to the limit of 223 total.
If they can't operate them,we can be sure ALPA will change the pwa to let them.

If they can't operate them,we can be sure ALPA will change the pwa to let them.

It won't be for DAL! The MEC would not vote to allow it out of a meeting and it would fail a MEMRAT anyway.

What is the quid we could secure if the company were to desire a change that allowed SKYW to fly it elsewhere (AMR/LCC/UCAL)?
More money?
Reducing the DCI limit by a number of airframes again?
Upping the MBH ratios?
Improving vac/trng credit again?
Moving res max to ALV 7.5?
ADG to 5:00?
We still have a list of wants, you never know when you can make some gains.

Lots of options out there where we can gain without really losing anything.

Merely holding the line and forcing the elimination of SKYW wouldn't reduce the RJ flying, DAL would merely ensure the flying was placed at another(undercutting) DCI.

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

I agree. But it's only "giving up scope" if we get nothing in return. It's selling otherwise.;):D

I agree. But it's only "giving up scope" if we get nothing in return. It's selling otherwise.;):D

That's true. Given what we've seen in the past, it prob won't take much and we won't get to vote on it. (the bathtub rim/Moak sale...)

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

Well there you go.

Well there you go.

Bill,

Doesn't this order concern you? It is for deliveries of 90 seat aircraft in a few years (Just in time for another section 6). The audacity of an airline to order these, or shall I say their arrogance and "gamble" that we, Delta Pilots, will allow them to fly the 90 seaters with the dangling of "extra money in our pockets".

The likely hood of the DCI flying these 90 seaters are High, why else would they gamble and order them?

TEN

You guys...Lol.

Who says that they are gonna be flown for Delta??? :confused:

If they are...it will be under Alaska, under Delta code shared flights.

Look for them to be flown for everybody else BUT Delta.

You guys...Lol.

Who says that they are gonna be flown for Delta??? :confused:

If they are...it will be under Alaska, under Delta code shared flights.

Look for them to be flown for everybody else BUT Delta.

The new TA prohibits something that size from being flown by any of our regional carriers (except RAH) completely- doesn't matter who its being flown for.

The new TA prohibits something that size from being flown by any of our regional carriers (except RAH) completely- doesn't matter who its being flown for.

What prohibits them? MTOW? Can they be configured for 76 seats (Like the "90" seat CRJ 900) and flown legally?

Geez guys.... In skywests press release it clearly states these are fleet replacement airframes, not growth. They can be configured to meet the 76 seat scope limit. This could be more of a tactic to put pressure on bombardier, who knows. It's also an agreement in principle, not a firm order. Skywest/ expressjet also flys for unical and will surely be bidding on eagle flying in the near future. The airline buisness does not revolve and Delta.

The new TA prohibits something that size from being flown by any of our regional carriers (except RAH) completely- doesn't matter who its being flown for.

Not sure if it makes much of a difference, but if the TA expires in 2015 and these aren't even slated to show up til 2017, does it matter what the current TA says?

Honest question, btw.

Not sure if it makes much of a difference, but if the TA expires in 2015 and these aren't even slated to show up til 2017, does it matter what the current TA says?

Honest question, btw.

Contracts don't expire, they become amendable.

They aren't amended unless a new agreement is reached. It doesn't just become void (Pinnacle's contract was amendable from 2005- an agreement was finally reached last year, CAL and UAL have been amendable for a while as well)

From Brad Rich's memo:
"These 100 aircraft would be replacement aircraft for current ExpressJet and SkyWest Airlines fleets and are fully intended to fly under contract with major partners. They are not growth aircraft. The aircraft identified in the agreement in principle include the MRJ70 or MRJ90, which range from 70 to 90 seats. The configuration of seats would be determined by scope limitations and airline requirements at the time of delivery.
The intended delivery time frame would be from 2017 to 2020. While specific allocations are yet to be determined, we anticipate that aircraft would be delivered to both of SkyWest, Inc’s operating entities. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to remain competitive in our ability to accept these or any aircraft."

The nerve of Skywest management to try to run an airline.

What prohibits them? MTOW? Can they be configured for 76 seats (Like the "90" seat CRJ 900) and flown legally?

Unless it dropped out, there is a MTOW limit in the contract.

A 747-400 is a 500+ seat airplane, but that doesn't mean you put in as many seats as you possibly can in it.

Contracts don't expire, they become amendable.

They aren't amended unless a new agreement is reached. It doesn't just become void (Pinnacle's contract was amendable from 2005- an agreement was finally reached last year, CAL and UAL have been amendable for a while as well)

Thank you, that's what I thought but I wasn't sure if management slipped some sort of crafty verbiage in to allow these MRJs or something of that nature.

Maybe the MRJs are for an AMR code share. What does their new TA allow, up to 79 seats? Maybe the contract with Mitsubishi has a contingency clause depending on the pilot TA and the BK precedings.

The new TA prohibits something that size from being flown by any of our regional carriers (except RAH) completely- doesn't matter who its being flown for.

O ok...what section is that under? And what is the exact language?

And do you honestly think that they will not find a way around that?

Not sure if it makes much of a difference, but if the TA expires in 2015 and these aren't even slated to show up til 2017, does it matter what the current TA says?

Honest question, btw.

Ha! True. With the number of yes votes, Delta is probably kicking themselves cause they couldve gotten a few more seats allowed. Next TA will probably add 5-10 more seats, at least..

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

6 months ago I would of bet lots of $$$ that DALPA would not give up more 70+ seat RJ's. Now, I'd be shocked if DALPA could ever truly hold the line in regards to SCOPE. The current contract is proof that something is always for sale with the Delta pilots.

So what does Deltas PWA say regarding scope?

Is it weight, certified seats?

If it's just seats and no other criteria then whats to stop them from farming out 25 737s that have 70 seats, all business class, coast-to-coast premium service to skywest?

MTOW of the 51-76 jets in the DAL contract is 86000 lbs. There is a Compass only exception for 36 EMB-175's MTOW up to 89,000 lbs. According to the Mitsubishi website the MRJ-70STD MTOW is about 82000, and the MRJ-70ER is just under 86000. All the MRJ-90's are too big for our contract restrictions.

Alright, let me see if I can help out the cause. Here are three excerpts from the PWA:

Section 1.B.46, the definition of what a permitted aircraft is for DCI:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/TEMP1-47.png

Section 1.C where we say all flying is ours. Section 1.D where we exempt DCI (or category A operations) from 1.C. and then 1.B.11-13 where we define category A operations as DCI.

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/temp2-43.png

Now the MRJ's:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/temp3-39.png

For comparison purposes the specifications of the E-175 is here and you can find the E-190 stuff at http://www.embraer.com/en-US/Aeronaves/Pages/Home.aspx:
http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/img//download/137.pdf

Maybe the MRJs are for an AMR code share. What does their new TA allow, up to 79 seats? Maybe the contract with Mitsubishi has a contingency clause depending on the pilot TA and the BK precedings.

I don't think it matters. I thought there was one loophole, the Republic loophole that allowed planes to be flown at another airline over the MTOW or 76 seats, that being Frontier. I thought the new contract didn't allow other feeders to have larger planes or it risked their feed contracts. FtB still probably thinks I work for Air Grand Canyon, but in reality I don't carry the contract on me, so I come here to ask smarty pants guys like him.

What's interesting about this is that if Skywest is about to receive a bunch of aircraft to replace its 50 seaters for Delta, why are they buying replacement aircraft for a jet that is only going to be 2 years old?

Ha! True. With the number of yes votes, Delta is probably kicking themselves cause they couldve gotten a few more seats allowed. Next TA will probably add 5-10 more seats, at least..

It has to be a good deal overall, one that actually helps mainline. People will disagree with this new contract and the scope, but overall it reduced the numbers of total RJs and put limits (caps) and ratios to favor mainline. That is why this one passed. The next offer would have to do the same, but this last one didn't add any extra seats to the 76 seat limit. The company supposedly wanted that, and of course it didn't happen. Money didn't buy additional seats on any RJ.

What's interesting about this is that if Skywest is about to receive a bunch of aircraft to replace its 50 seaters for Delta, why are they buying replacement aircraft for a jet that is only going to be 2 years old?

Huh? Eventually there will be 70 additional 76 seaters allowed as 717s arrive. They could be divided into planes for Skywest, Gojets, etc.

Can they still be a DCI operator with 100 MRJs and the newer scope clause? Apparently they are thinking of ordering 100 Mitsubishi RJs for delivery between 2017 and 2020.

I see here that plane sits 70-90, so up to 76 seats would be allowed up to the limit of 223 total.

When we send the message that we are willing to renegotiate any line in the PWA once it affects the business plan; yes.

We going to decide to defend the limits we have and work towards a comprehensive plan to change the vector our profession is going, or is more ofnthe same the acceptable course?

Bill pilots like you are the ones that need to make a firm commitment one way or another?

What will it be next time? 773's or 789's for these and the C series because Dal cannot possibly hire that many pilots in five years?

2017 looks to be about the right time for a new agreement with a mid term change with a merger. 2017 is when the retirements really kick in. 2016-17 is we're the real debate will happen since we kicked the can down the field. Notice this happened 12 days after our TA passed.

What's it going to be folks? We going to be lobsters in a pot on the stove taking a nice bath or are we going to be proactive and aggressively swim away from that trap?

Ha! True. With the number of yes votes, Delta is probably kicking themselves cause they couldve gotten a few more seats allowed. Next TA will probably add 5-10 more seats, at least..

The Company REALLY wanted 88 seats, and asked all the way up to the last negotiating session. They backed down to 82, then to 79.... DALPA said no.

(Well actually DALPA said yes they could put 82 seats in the "76 seaters'", but the only condition was that Delta Pilots fly them!! ......The Company wasn't as interested in that.:rolleyes:)

Quit the grandstanding. Wikipedia says it seats 70-90. So, if it's at 76 seats, that's fine, within the scope limits set. A-okay. If they go over 76 seats, I don't think that sits well with our clause. Only Frontier via Republic is permitted to have planes over 76 seats flying for them.

Tops ones are above the weight limit. That applies.

I don't think they will be allowed to fly the larger version, and certainly not for DL as feed or a code share.

Think or does our PWA prohibit it?

..................

What will it be next time? 773's or 789's for these and the C series because Dal cannot possibly hire that many pilots in five years?

2017 looks to be about the right time for a new agreement with a mid term change with a merger. 2017 is when the retirements really kick in. 2016-17 is we're the real debate will happen since we kicked the can down the field. Notice this happened 12 days after our TA passed.

What's it going to be folks? We going to be lobsters in a pot on the stove taking a nice bath or are we going to be proactive and aggressively swim away from that trap?

No. Small domestic narrowbody swaps for smaller domestic narrowbody is one thing, international birds are not a comparator.

That is when Farnborough Air Show takes place..... Black helicopert.

It won't be for DAL! The MEC would not vote to allow it out of a meeting and it would fail a MEMRAT anyway.

What is the quid we could secure if the company were to desire a change that allowed SKYW to fly it elsewhere (AMR/LCC/UCAL)?
More money?
Reducing the DCI limit by a number of airframes again?
Upping the MBH ratios?
Improving vac/trng credit again?
Moving res max to ALV 7.5?
ADG to 5:00?
We still have a list of wants, you never know when you can make some gains.

Lots of options out there where we can gain without really losing anything.

Merely holding the line and forcing the elimination of SKYW wouldn't reduce the RJ flying, DAL would merely ensure the flying was placed at another(undercutting) DCI.

Shiz, succinctly it's moving a scope limit when it effects the operation. Moreover they made this official after knowing ournpwa limits. Sunds like the bombardier order in 2000-2001 that they "knew" was beyond our scope. Guess what? The scope changed right before the deliveries arrived.

We as a group need to decide if trading scope for other PWA gains is the best method of doing business? If so, carry on.

No. Small domestic narrowbody swaps for smaller domestic narrowbody is one thing, international birds are not a comparator.

That is when Farnborough Air Show takes place..... Black helicopert.

Nothing black in my life but rain clouds. You do not have to announce at Farnborough. Many don't unless they want the press.

Bill,

Doesn't this order concern you? It is for deliveries of 90 seat aircraft in a few years (Just in time for another section 6). The audacity of an airline to order these, or shall I say their arrogance and "gamble" that we, Delta Pilots, will allow them to fly the 90 seaters with the dangling of "extra money in our pockets".

The likely hood of the DCI flying these 90 seaters are High, why else would they gamble and order them?

TEN

Well:
RJET has the C-Series on order

TSH has the MRJ on order

Now SKW has the MRJ on order. Only one of them got a cutout.


Two things solve this. CSeries and CS 100 order for a major flown by their pilots

Dumping DCI carriers that want to fly these.

From Brad Rich's memo:
"These 100 aircraft would be replacement aircraft for current ExpressJet and SkyWest Airlines fleets and are fully intended to fly under contract with major partners. They are not growth aircraft. The aircraft identified in the agreement in principle include the MRJ70 or MRJ90, which range from 70 to 90 seats. The configuration of seats would be determined by scope limitations and airline requirements at the time of delivery.
The intended delivery time frame would be from 2017 to 2020. While specific allocations are yet to be determined, we anticipate that aircraft would be delivered to both of SkyWest, Inc’s operating entities. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to remain competitive in our ability to accept these or any aircraft."

The nerve of Skywest management to try to run an airline.

No nerve there. SKW and ASA/Express Jet fly for many carriers but remember that all of 76 seaters for our new deal will be delivered by 2015 unless Dal has decided to wait for these 70 seat jets and not add when the 717 arrives.

The large ones are over our limits.

The way I see it, Skywest/ExpressJet could operate the MRJ-70ER for DCI.

It is under the 86,000 lb limit and can be configured with 76 seats just like the E-175 or CRJ-900 that can seat pitch torture in their max configuration 88 or 90 passengers respectively.

Now when Section 1.B defines the 76-seater (and 70-seater) as an aircraft certified in the United States with a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs or less. Obviously there are variants of the E-175 (including in Compass' fleet) that exceed that MGTOW but yet the E-175 is still permitted as long as it is certified below that MGTOW.

So I have to say that the MRJ-70ER is a permitted aircraft type.

Now, could Skywest branch off and create Big Skywest Airlines flying MRJ-90s that is a competitor to Delta while at the same time flying and receiving income from MRJ-70s operating for DCI? The way I read it, yes.

The MRJ-90 is certified for 106 or fewer and configured for 97 or fewer and the MRJ-90 would be a 92 seater. As long as they abide by the rest of Section 1.D.2 then it's permitted. Maybe there is a reasoning to the size of the MRJ just like there was a reason Embraer built the ERJ-140.

This is the problem with outsourcing in general and especially with outsourcing these far more profitable regional jets, we're growing and funding our future competition. This is why I think outsourcing, especially large jumbo not so regional regional-jets but not just limited to that, is bad not only for us as pilots but for our airline.

It was the reason many of us were livid about RAH. When they were found to be a single transportation system by the NMB in terms of class and craft, I thought we should've pressed to have them found just to be a single transportation system. And that the language in our contract would say they are in violation of Section 1 by operating Airbuses under their Frontier brand and therefore CHQ and Shuttle must be tossed from DCI.

We were told the language in Section 1 was insufficient to do so and nothing happened. The language was addressed in the TA to make sure this type of RAH operation was not permitted, but CHQ and Shuttle were given an exemption anyways. Frustratingly weak on our part.

But this won't be a problem for Skywest with the MRJ-90. So if they want to go off and create Big Skywest Airlines running MRJ-90s while also flying MRJ-70s for DCI, as long as they abide by the other language in 1.D.2, it's all permissible.

FTB. It's simple. Exemptions lead to more exemptions.

It has to be a good deal overall, one that actually helps mainline. People will disagree with this new contract and the scope, but overall it reduced the numbers of total RJs and put limits (caps) and ratios to favor mainline. That is why this one passed. The next offer would have to do the same, but this last one didn't add any extra seats to the 76 seat limit. The company supposedly wanted that, and of course it didn't happen. Money didn't buy additional seats on any RJ.

Bill, it would help Delta mainline to outsource the aircraft that YOU fly (DCI could do it much cheaper). By your logic, then you should easily vote to give that flying to DCI.

Delta pilots have once again proven that scope is for sale. These MRJs will be flown for Delta. The only question is how much money will have to be given to the Lumbergs of Delta in 2015 to allow it.

Well:
RJET has the C-Series on order

TSH has the MRJ on order

Now SKW has the MRJ on order. Only one of them got a cutout.


Two things solve this. CSeries and CS 100 order for a major flown by their pilots

Dumping DCI carriers that want to fly these.

ACl,
Explain the ramifications or possible future phase-in of this cutout, please. Thanks.
Why did Rjet get this?

TEN

ACl,
Explain the ramifications or possible future phase-in of this cutout, please. Thanks.
Why did Rjet get this?

TEN

They got it because they already operate those aircraft. Had it not been in the contract all RAH flying for Delta would have to be terminated at contract signing. Not something management was likely to do. I recall on these boards how many predicted they would be flying the A319's for DCI within a year of the purchase of Frontier. Somehow that never happened and they are now looking to dump the operation.

Huh? Eventually there will be 70 additional 76 seaters allowed as 717s arrive. They could be divided into planes for Skywest, Gojets, etc.Yes, and Skywest is already buying replacement jets for those aircraft, and so is Gojets(allegedly).

Interesting that these operators have such confidence in Mitsubishi when the Company's previous efforts have not produced aircraft which were all that safe, or successful in the market.

Mean while Delta remains unsure of Boeing and Bombardier's products (except for used 20 to 30+ year old technology) acquired at the airline version of "pull a part auto rebuilders."

Tail wags dog.

ACl,
Explain the ramifications or possible future phase-in of this cutout, please. Thanks.
Why did Rjet get this?

TEN

Sailing is correct. Gong forward if an operator like SKW decides to operate jets outside of DCI that are not permitted, would Dal allow them to be cut or find a way to modify the PWA language to make their decision easier on Dal?

Interesting that these operators have such confidence in Mitsubishi when the Company's previous efforts have not produced aircraft which were all that safe, or successful in the market.

Mean while Delta remains unsure of Boeing and Bombardier's products (except for used 20 to 30+ year old technology) acquired at the airline version of "pull a part auto rebuilders."

Tail wags dog.

I talked to an FAA mx inspector in DTW who was heading back to Nagoya for a couple weeks to oversee the certification process for that plane. He didn't seem too impressed, said it was very "interesting" and I think I saw him roll his eyes.

No. Small domestic narrowbody swaps for smaller domestic narrowbody is one thing, international birds are not a comparator.

That is when Farnborough Air Show takes place..... Black helicopert.
Yes and it was the company and ALPA pushing so hard and fast to get it done so early.

I didn't know Delta management posted on this forum. You guys work for Delta?? Your suppose to be smart...Top Gun graduates..

SkyWest Holdings owns SkyWest and ExpressJet. They operate 700 aircraft. Most of which are 50 seaters.

You guys vote for more 70's..and there is a 7 page thread on it?!?!

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

I thought that depended on which variant they end up getting. Anyway if it comes down to it, no quarter. Cut them off and let them fade away into the landfill of airline history.

Interesting that these operators have such confidence in Mitsubishi when the Company's previous efforts have not produced aircraft which were all that safe, or successful in the market.

Mean while Delta remains unsure of Boeing and Bombardier's products (except for used 20 to 30+ year old technology) acquired at the airline version of "pull a part auto rebuilders."

Tail wags dog.

True. It seems like any and all "scope jets" fly off the shelves in a frantic real estate order book bubble only to quickly peter out as the industry learns the hard way they are POS's and they bought way too many and paid way, way, way too much for them.

But the pilots work for less, so its an autowin, amirite?

More B school brilliance from the MBA crowd.

Hi, I understand that. They have more seats. But not for Delta. 76 is the limit, and there is a limit for the number of those planes too.

And that is all that matters. SKYW is an independent solvent company. They can do what they want. They can buy whatever airplanes they want. They just cannot do any of that flying for DAL if it exceeds our scope. Much ado about nothing.

If they can't operate them,we can be sure ALPA will change the pwa to let them.

Sure could. Of course since WE are ALPA, it would have to be US doing that, and I find that highly unlikely.

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

How do you figure that?

How do you figure that?

I posted that before I knew there were models below 86,000 lbs.

I thought this thing was more like the C-series.

Quite interesting the timing of the delivery date, in that instance. Just in time for another "good deal" for Delta pilots, eh? ;)

Yes and it was the company and ALPA pushing so hard and fast to get it done so early.

ROTFLMAO... yeah.. that was it.. The Farnborough air show... That was the event that triggered management to come to us early..

I posted that before I knew there were models below 86,000 lbs.

I thought this thing was more like the C-series.

Quite interesting the timing of the delivery date, in that instance. Just in time for another "good deal" for Delta pilots, eh? ;)

I don't see what the concern is.. This is a bunch of paranoia run amok.

I thought that depended on which variant they end up getting. Anyway if it comes down to it, no quarter. Cut them off and let them fade away into the landfill of airline history.

Winner winner chicken dinner...

Or they could go fly for AMR or somewhere else I guess.. but not here.

I don't see what the concern is.. This is a bunch of paranoia run amok.

Some of these people are the same ones who asked "Where does it say we WILL get 717s?"

I don't see what the concern is.. This is a bunch of paranoia run amok.

I'd be willing to bet we won't see a single MRJ fly in the states, honestly.

The alert had better be up for ALPA giving up more jumbo RJ's for a "good deal" next around as well, though.

Some of these people are the same ones who asked "Where does it say we WILL get 717s?"


Well in all fairness, there is nothing in the contract that said we WILL get them. It DOES say that in order to do the RJ deal they must get them and put them into service.. but they could have tanked the whole deal and run with the RJ fleet in the current configuration. It wouldn't make any sense.. but they could have done that..

Really? Talk about gullible. It's called the Farnburough Air Show. That is when airlines are courted by manufacturers. That is when airlines make announcements, along with the Paris Airshow. Do you think that was all coordinated? Wow.

I see two possible scenarios to this announcement:

The "Black Helicopter" scenario - SKW has a plan and knows where these aircraft will be going, despite the fact that United/Continental scope and the entire AA operation are unknowns... which leaves Delta or branded as the only other options. i.e.: This is all coordinated.

or...

The "Unicorns and Rainbows" scenario - Wade Steel (SKW Finance) just gave Mike Thompson (SKW Marketing) a check for two billion dollars and told him to fly over to Farnborough and do some shopping. Try to get a good deal on a bunch of aircraft that we don't have any plans for. Maybe go poke around that Mitsubishi booth and see if you can get some free tote bags, but don't buy any timeshares or a hundred airplanes unless it looks like a great deal spur-of-the-moment. We'll sort out the details when you get back. i.e.: This is entirely uncoordinated.

Well in all fairness, there is nothing in the contract that said we WILL get them. It DOES say that in order to do the RJ deal they must get them and put them into service.. but they could have tanked the whole deal and run with the RJ fleet in the current configuration. It wouldn't make any sense.. but they could have done that..

Was like pulling teeth getting you to finally say that.

It didn't make sense for them to not get the 717's even with out the TA, but that's neither here nor there now.

I see two possible scenarios to this announcement:

The "Black Helicopter" scenario - SKW has a plan and knows where these aircraft will be going, despite the fact that United/Continental scope and the entire AA operation are unknowns... which leaves Delta or branded as the only other options. i.e.: This is all coordinated.

or...

The "Unicorns and Rainbows" scenario - Wade Steel (SKW Finance) just gave Mike Thompson (SKW Marketing) a check for two billion dollars and told him to fly over to Farnborough and do some shopping. Try to get a good deal on a bunch of aircraft that we don't have any plans for. Maybe go poke around that Mitsubishi booth and see if you can get some free tote bags, but don't buy any timeshares or a hundred airplanes unless it looks like a great deal spur-of-the-moment. We'll sort out the details when you get back. i.e.: This is entirely uncoordinated.

No, I think SKW management told DL to give us a deal early so they could get some MRJs. They TOLD them to do it.

Well in all fairness, there is nothing in the contract that said we WILL get them. It DOES say that in order to do the RJ deal they must get them and put them into service.. but they could have tanked the whole deal and run with the RJ fleet in the current configuration. It wouldn't make any sense.. but they could have done that..

If they didn't get the 717s, they wouldn't get the 70 76 seaters, and then they would have just had to park 200 plus 50 seaters to bring them down to 125 total. It seemed obvious that they would have to get small narrowbodies to get what they wanted, 76 seaters and fewer 50 seaters.

I see two possible scenarios to this announcement:

The "Black Helicopter" scenario - SKW has a plan and knows where these aircraft will be going, despite the fact that United/Continental scope and the entire AA operation are unknowns... which leaves Delta or branded as the only other options. i.e.: This is all coordinated.

or...

The "Unicorns and Rainbows" scenario - Wade Steel (SKW Finance) just gave Mike Thompson (SKW Marketing) a check for two billion dollars and told him to fly over to Farnborough and do some shopping. Try to get a good deal on a bunch of aircraft that we don't have any plans for. Maybe go poke around that Mitsubishi booth and see if you can get some free tote bags, but don't buy any timeshares or a hundred airplanes unless it looks like a great deal spur-of-the-moment. We'll sort out the details when you get back. i.e.: This is entirely uncoordinated.

the best humor has an element of truth. sadly. :D

...If they go over 76 seats, I don't think that sits well with our clause...

I don't think they will be allowed to fly the larger version, and certainly not for DL as feed or a code share.

Hahahha. I don't have the contract on me like you do. I thought there was only one loophole for Frontier and the Republic clause. If they keep the MRJs at the smaller end, then I guess it's ok, and they'll use them at UA or AA.


I don't think it matters. I thought there was one loophole, the Republic loophole that allowed planes to be flown at another airline over the MTOW or 76 seats, that being Frontier. I thought the new contract didn't allow other feeders to have larger planes or it risked their feed contracts. FtB still probably thinks I work for Air Grand Canyon, but in reality I don't carry the contract on me, so I come here to ask smarty pants guys like him.

Please, please... please!!! tell me that the biggest SCOPE proponent on APC knows his new contract's SCOPE rules better than this.

I would hope that the guys who spent a month arguing how airtight the TA's "permitted aircraft" language is, would remember what that language permitted 11 days later.

Bill, sorry if I'm misreading the inflection, tone, and emotion of your posts.

Alright, so according to Wikipedia Skywest has 20 CR7s and 21 CR9s and ExpressJet (ASA) has 46 CR7s and 10 CR9s. Or 97 CR7s/CR9s.

They said this MRJ order was 100 replacement jets and so that works out if the MRJ-70STD can be a decent 70 seater and the MRJ-70ER is a good 76-seater.

But here's a thought, operate MRJs for DCI and then operate MRJ-90s for your own branded operation without any limitation other than city pair routings. Gives you options and allows you to diversify income possibilities and be in position to pounce on a good opportunity.

Like buying Delta. :D

Seriously, isn't outsourcing big jets brilliant on our part! :rolleyes:

Please, please... please!!! tell me that the biggest SCOPE proponent on APC knows his new contract's SCOPE rules better than this.

I would hope that the guys who spent a month arguing how airtight the TA's "permitted aircraft" language is, would remember what that language permitted 11 days later.

Bill, sorry if I'm misreading the inflection, tone, and emotion of your posts.


http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/laughing_cat.jpg

No, I think SKW management told DL to give us a deal early so they could get some MRJs. They TOLD them to do it.

If Anderson is so brilliant, I would suggest that the notion...

Delta and SKW were making deals in room 1, while
Delta and Bombardier were dealing in room 2, while
SKW and Mitsubishi were dealing in room 3,
and all the while Delta and DALPA were negotiating in room 4...
is not entirely unfeasible.

What is unlikely, in my opinion, is that SkyWest placing a huge order for jumbo RJs has nothing to do with Delta's TA passage 11 days ago.

Delta and Southwest were in room 5,
Delta and Boeing were in room 6,
Southwest was sharpening knives in front of FL ALPA under the stairwell,
Ray LaHood was in room 7 steaming mad about Delta's refusal to buy him off... I mean contribute.

Please, please... please!!! tell me that the biggest SCOPE proponent on APC knows his new contract's SCOPE rules better than this.

I would hope that the guys who spent a month arguing how airtight the TA's "permitted aircraft" language is, would remember what that language permitted 11 days later.

Bill, sorry if I'm misreading the inflection, tone, and emotion of your posts.

Sorry, but I am not management or ALPA, so stating it like that shows that it is my opinion. As far as specifics in the contract, I know basically what it says, but leave the specifics to guys like ACL.

And maybe I am reading your emotion a little bit too much, but it seems like you are getting "emotional.". Remember, this is just business.

Delta and Southwest were in room 5,
Delta and Boeing were in room 6,
Southwest was sharpening knives in front of FL ALPA under the stairwell,
Ray LaHood was in room 7 steaming mad about Delta's refusal to buy him off... I mean contribute.



Jerry Sandusky wonders if his next shanking will be meat, wood, or steel in shower room 8.
Timmay Martins pencilwhips his logbook to show 1004 TPIC (because 1000 looks suspicious) and photoshops a 737 Type and ATP onto his Commercial license in room 9.

Wasn't it Tim who flew B-2s in the USMC Reserves while serving as the best sniper on the side when they needed someone with the golden gun touch, right?

And maybe I am reading your emotion a little bit too much, but it seems like you are getting "emotional.". Remember, this is just business.

If "emotional" includes humor, then yes. Gallows humor, often served with an overly-arrogant helping of sarcasm. Sometimes I invent my own irony.

But I ran out of FUD back in 2008, if that's what you mean.

Sorry, but I am not management or ALPA, so stating it like that shows that it is my opinion. As far as specifics in the contract, I know basically what it says, but leave the specifics to guys like ACL.

And maybe I am reading your emotion a little bit too much, but it seems like you are getting "emotional.". Remember, this is just business.


ACL, who told you that you were dead wrong on your interpretation of the ramifications of the contract over and over?

this is getting bizzare.

Wasn't it Tim who flew B-2s in the USMC Reserves while serving as the best sniper on the side when they needed someone with the golden gun touch, right?

I thought he was a Delta sniper for FDNY while he waited for his B-2 class date. DiverDriver would know more though.

PS - Speaking of writers and fact checking - Denis Leary article in Delta's July Sky Magazine, pg. 54 - New York's Fire Department is abbreviated NYFD? Really, Sky magazine? Where have you been since 9/11? It's FDNY. Thanks for trying really hard though. Your article on the best oyster bar in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was spot-on.

on another note, too bad Mitsubishi didn't just combine the good looks of the MU-2...

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FAA_Inaction/MU2down_files/MU2_marquise_01_640x419.jpg

with big turbofans bolted on top of the wing.

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/5627-785270.jpg

ACL, who told you that you were dead wrong on your interpretation of the ramifications of the contract over and over?

Ha ha. You guys still have black helicopters flying over your homes. You wanted a homerun, which was never possible. This contract helps us, and that is a fact. A lot of you guys have bad cases of paranoia, and it shows. And you already know this, but I stated ACL knows the specifics of the contract, in written form. Have a great night.

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/5627-785270.jpg

I'd fly either of them for Delta pay. Heck, bolt a GAU-8 on the bottom one and I'd fly it for free. :D

Sorry, but I am not management or ALPA, so stating it like that shows that it is my opinion. As far as specifics in the contract, I know basically what it says, but leave the specifics to guys like ACL.

And maybe I am reading your emotion a little bit too much, but it seems like you are getting "emotional.". Remember, this is just business.

Please remember, in 2015, when the MDs have been retired, and SkyWest is flying your 717s, that it is just business.

Ha ha. You guys still have black helicopters flying over your homes. You wanted a homerun, which was never possible. This contract helps us, and that is a fact. A lot of you guys have bad cases of paranoia, and it shows. And you already know this, but I stated ACL knows the specifics of the contract, in written form. Have a great night.

ACL, did you know you know the contract in written form? :D What does that mean???

We should have a new game, guess where Bill works. I'm going to exclude two airlines right now, Delta and Skywest.

Please remember, in 2015, when the MDs have been retired, and SkyWest is flying your 717s, that it is just business.

Come again? I'm gonna need to see a quote in the contract where that one can take place... Heck, I'll bet you a cold whiskey you can't find that one in there. ;)

Come again? I'm gonna need to see a quote in the contract where that one can take place... Heck, I'll bet you a cold whiskey you can't find that one in there. ;)

Amendable in 2015. Delta pilots give away a little with each contract. The 90 seaters and the 717s are next. But hey, it's just business.

Amendable in 2015. Delta pilots give away a little with each contract. The 90 seaters and the 717s are next. But hey, it's just business.

Can you show me where we gave away any seats the past 12 years except in bankruptcy (and then it was 6 seats up to 76)?

So we're just going to give away 14 seats and then another 25 seats? The pilot group might be a bit gullible when it comes to this latest sell job, but they aren't stupid.

Please remember, in 2015, when the MDs have been retired, and SkyWest is flying your 717s, that it is just business.

Only one way that happens - those guys working for Skywest "politicked" ALPA to get 717s at DCI payrates....and they can forget about moving to the majors as they will sit at a DCI carrier for that much longer. DALPA will not give those jets up.

Ha ha. You guys still have black helicopters flying over your homes. You wanted a homerun, which was never possible. This contract helps us, and that is a fact. A lot of you guys have bad cases of paranoia, and it shows. And you already know this, but I stated ACL knows the specifics of the contract, in written form. Have a great night.

And ACL has repeatedly tried to point out the flaws in the specifics of the contract, which you choose to repeatedly ignore in favor of blathering on about black helicopters and your 717A seat.

Nothing quite so frustrating as an ill-educated but stubborn electorate.....

Ha ha. You guys still have black helicopters flying over your homes. You wanted a homerun, which was never possible. This contract helps us, and that is a fact. A lot of you guys have bad cases of paranoia, and it shows. And you already know this, but I stated ACL knows the specifics of the contract, in written form. Have a great night.

Bill, paranoia is on of those words that people use when they do not want to debate a concern or specific. It's not paranoia. It is looking at the language and the history of DALPA that makes one look to a scenario where the language would fail, not be defended, or renegotiated.

Exclusions, lead to more exclusions, or lawsuits from carriers like SKW if we defend our language. I have stated where I have my biggest concerns wrt to section 1, and many of them are when we negotiate our new TA in 2015-2016.

There are so many data points leading to further scope modifications that do not result in a long term vision that one must be in denial not to see; the 100 seat battle, as well as new provisions like Holding Company, will come under attack in the next round or two. What's a few thousand more pounds on a 76 seat allowance? It's breathing lifeblood in to. An operation that outsources not just our jobs but the jobs of all DAL employees. It's further erosion or modification of section 1 to facilitate a business plan.

Is 12% worth further modifications or erosion? When is enough enough? When is it time to change the paradigm of how we view small gauge flying and it's importance in better not just our careers but those after us?

Amendable in 2015. Delta pilots give away a little with each contract. The 90 seaters and the 717s are next. But hey, it's just business.

Duplicate........

Amendable in 2015. Delta pilots give away a little with each contract. The 90 seaters and the 717s are next. But hey, it's just business.

Haha! You funny guy! The joint contract with NWA didn't give up any scope and the seat count for RJs hasn't risen since the joint bankruptcies. Two things that are dropping are the overall count of RJs, which is significant, and the ratio of flying for DCI. It's only business.

Bill, paranoia is on of those words that people use when they do not want to debate a concern or specific. It's not paranoia. It is looking at the language and the history of DALPA that makes one look to a scenario where the language would fail, not be defended, or renegotiated.

Exclusions, lead to more exclusions, or lawsuits from carriers like SKW if we defend our language. I have stated where I have my biggest concerns wrt to section 1, and many of them are when we negotiate our new TA in 2015-2016.

There are so many data points leading to further scope modifications that do not result in a long term vision that one must be in denial not to see; the 100 seat battle, as well as new provisions like Holding Company, will come under attack in the next round or two. What's a few thousand more pounds on a 76 seat allowance? It's breathing lifeblood in to. An operation that outsources not just our jobs but the jobs of all DAL employees. It's further erosion or modification of section 1 to facilitate a business plan.

Is 12% worth further modifications or erosion? When is enough enough? When is it time to change the paradigm of how we view small gauge flying and it's importance in better not just our careers but those after us?

Wait, you guys all said that the 100 seat jet was going to get sold out on this negotiation. So after you were completely wrong, now you have an absolute prediction for the next negotiation. I mean you said at least 1,000 times about how the 100 seaters were in play in this negotiation and now that they are definitively at mainline, now well, it is just around the corner that they are in play again. You say ALPA plays the fear game?

When did Delta start getting 76 seat jets? When were you hired? How many pilots has Delta hired/recalled/come back from Mil Leave since 2007? What about all the other major airlines? Combined?

If American has this great scope clause that protects jobs, whey do they have 1,900 pilots on furlough? Why have they been furloughed for 10+ years now? In the last 10 years, how many 76 jets have been placed at American? Continental?

It seems to me that you deal in a never ending fear campaign about what is going to happen next, without ever looking at what is happening right now. We just signed this deal for more 76 seat jets. Do you want to take a wager on who hires pilots next Delta or United or American? How about how many are hired?

It just seems to me that you have learned all the wrong lessons, you are hyper focused on one detail and ignore everything else around you. You pride yourself as being some grand thinker who connects the dots, but in the end you view the world through a soda straw and have let this one issue dominate your entire thinking.

You talk about not defending the language or having the language fail. Give examples and then show how that impacted Delta pilot jobs. It seems that all the ex-RJ drivers have an obsession about what they left behind and what is happening to those pilots who are still flying RJ's. This obsession has clouded your thinking until you can no longer make a rational analysis of what is happening. In your world, you count up 76 seat jets and whoever has the lowest number wins. In my view, it is what creates more jobs and what creates better jobs for mainline.

Airlines like American that have followed your strategy are not succeeding and their pilots are not benefiting from that strategy. Do you have any explanation for that? We lead the industry in rebuilding the profession and adding jobs in the last 5 years, and yet you say our strategy is failing? Why?

Nobody mentioning the geared turbofan combined with a rear cargohold and range optimization? Flown by the cheapest companies in the business the MRJ is going to blow the CASM doors off anything at mainline for the next decade or more, that is if it ever actually gets built.

If American has this great scope clause that protects jobs, whey do they have 1,900 pilots on furlough? Why have they been furloughed for 10+ years now? In the last 10 years, how many 76 jets have been placed at American? Continental?



DALPA (LD specifically) has told me not to compare us to SWA, therfore, don't compare us to AA and CAL. Its a two way street.

DALPA (LD specifically) has told me not to compare us to SWA, therfore, don't compare us to AA and CAL. Its a two way street.

Seriously, this is your argument. ALPA did multiple comparisons with SWA. SWA does have a different business model but it is morphing closer to Delta. Maybe he was talking about the productivity comparison which is not good for us.

But if your argument is that AA and U/CAL don't have the same business model as Delta, then you are just rambling and are not serious.

Skywest cannot take delivery of these airplanes under the recently ratified TA. Not without us giving up scope...

Wow, you guys are jumping the gun.. This MRJ is no more then a CRJ900. Our older 700/900's are getting trashed. Put in a MRJ and even save money.... Sounds like the projected operating cost are way under a CRJ900.

Plus i bet they will not be flying for DL.. We do fly for US/AK and US you know.....

Seriously, this is your argument. ALPA did multiple comparisons with SWA. SWA does have a different business model but it is morphing closer to Delta. Maybe he was talking about the productivity comparison which is not good for us.

But if your argument is that AA and U/CAL don't have the same business model as Delta, then you are just rambling and are not serious.

Not arguing. I'm just repeating what LD told me personally when I brought up a comparison between my neighbors W2 (SWA) and mine.

Not arguing. I'm just repeating what LD told me personally when I brought up a comparison between my neighbors W2 (SWA) and mine.

Whoa whoa whoa. You're not allowed to repeat what you've been told verbatim.

Remember this simple rule when posting:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/ad230/ForgottoBid/TEMP1-48.png

When did Delta start getting 76 seat jets? When were you hired? How many pilots has Delta hired/recalled/come back from Mil Leave since 2007? What about all the other major airlines? Combined?

If American has this great scope clause that protects jobs, whey do they have 1,900 pilots on furlough? Why have they been furloughed for 10+ years now? In the last 10 years, how many 76 jets have been placed at American? Continental?

It seems to me that you deal in a never ending fear campaign about what is going to happen next, without ever looking at what is happening right now. We just signed this deal for more 76 seat jets. Do you want to take a wager on who hires pilots next Delta or United or American? How about how many are hired?

It just seems to me that you have learned all the wrong lessons, you are hyper focused on one detail and ignore everything else around you. You pride yourself as being some grand thinker who connects the dots, but in the end you view the world through a soda straw and have let this one issue dominate your entire thinking.

You talk about not defending the language or having the language fail. Give examples and then show how that impacted Delta pilot jobs. It seems that all the ex-RJ drivers have an obsession about what they left behind and what is happening to those pilots who are still flying RJ's. This obsession has clouded your thinking until you can no longer make a rational analysis of what is happening. In your world, you count up 76 seat jets and whoever has the lowest number wins. In my view, it is what creates more jobs and what creates better jobs for mainline.

Airlines like American that have followed your strategy are not succeeding and their pilots are not benefiting from that strategy. Do you have any explanation for that? We lead the industry in rebuilding the profession and adding jobs in the last 5 years, and yet you say our strategy is failing? Why?

ya'll get this?

IF YOU DON'T ALLOW MORE JUMBO RJ'S YOUR JOB IS IN JEOPARDY AND THE AIRLINE GOES THE WAY OF AMERICAN AND CONTINENTAL... wait continental?

Anyways, follow the logic. Just imagine how many more jobs we'd have if we let those 76 seaters become 82 seaters? Or let DCI have larger jets like the E190!!!!

I mean does anyone doubt that a regional could fly 717s cheaper than us since pilot costs are the only costs that matters when comparing us with DCI?

Which is ironic since you get chastised for thinking that 100 seaters are next...

Wait, you guys all said that the 100 seat jet was going to get sold out on this negotiation. So after you were completely wrong, now you have an absolute prediction for the next negotiation. I mean you said at least 1,000 times about how the 100 seaters were in play in this negotiation and now that they are definitively at mainline, now well, it is just around the corner that they are in play again. You say ALPA plays the fear game?

But on that note, ACL or 'you guys', I never remember ACL saying we were going to sell 100 seaters out on this negotiation, do ya'll?

I'd think I'd seen that if it was posted 1,000 times.

Now, the winner would be the person who said we'd outsource 70 more 76-seaters but that's not what's important.

What is important now is we get some more large RJ outsourcing going so that we don't end up in chapter 11 and furlough!

Outsourcing equals more jobs so let's celebrate that we held the lie at 76 seats! no wait, that makes no sense. start again. RJs are good for Delta pilots!!!!

We should've really let DCI have the 717s. That was a screw up on our part. I had it all backwards that outsourcing is the only way to go. Especially if you want fast contracts done early versus having long drawn out battles because the company wants large rj outsourcing but you don't understand how much better that is.

We should've really let DCI have the 717s. That was a screw up on our part. I had it all backwards that outsourcing is the only way to go. Especially if you want fast contracts done early versus having long drawn out battles because the company wants large rj outsourcing but you don't understand how much better that is.

Just think of how fast Delta would move to get those 717s at the regionals. They would have them in a couple months. Time value of money, and all... :D

Just think of how fast Delta would move to get those 717s at the regionals. They would have them in a couple months. Time value of money, and all... :D

Two birds with bushes in their hands is better than one hand in a bush.

Was like pulling teeth getting you to finally say that.

It didn't make sense for them to not get the 717's even with out the TA, but that's neither here nor there now.


I disagree with that. If they couldn't get rid of the 50 seaters, the 717s made no sense. They might have taken some, but might not have taken all. We will never know, and it is pointless to speculate.

You and ftb preferred to let the 50s die of natural causes. Fine with me.. That would have only delayed YOUR upgrade further. I guess I should have voted no and said to hell with the scope.. just give me more money. Would THAT have been better? Really?

Please remember, in 2015, when the MDs have been retired, and SkyWest is flying your 717s, that it is just business.

fail.............

Wait, you guys all said that the 100 seat jet was going to get sold out on this negotiation. So after you were completely wrong, now you have an absolute prediction for the next negotiation. I mean you said at least 1,000 times about how the 100 seaters were in play in this negotiation and now that they are definitively at mainline, now well, it is just around the corner that they are in play again. You say ALPA plays the fear game?

When did Delta start getting 76 seat jets? When were you hired? How many pilots has Delta hired/recalled/come back from Mil Leave since 2007? What about all the other major airlines? Combined?

If American has this great scope clause that protects jobs, whey do they have 1,900 pilots on furlough? Why have they been furloughed for 10+ years now? In the last 10 years, how many 76 jets have been placed at American? Continental?

It seems to me that you deal in a never ending fear campaign about what is going to happen next, without ever looking at what is happening right now. We just signed this deal for more 76 seat jets. Do you want to take a wager on who hires pilots next Delta or United or American? How about how many are hired?

It just seems to me that you have learned all the wrong lessons, you are hyper focused on one detail and ignore everything else around you. You pride yourself as being some grand thinker who connects the dots, but in the end you view the world through a soda straw and have let this one issue dominate your entire thinking.

You talk about not defending the language or having the language fail. Give examples and then show how that impacted Delta pilot jobs. It seems that all the ex-RJ drivers have an obsession about what they left behind and what is happening to those pilots who are still flying RJ's. This obsession has clouded your thinking until you can no longer make a rational analysis of what is happening. In your world, you count up 76 seat jets and whoever has the lowest number wins. In my view, it is what creates more jobs and what creates better jobs for mainline.

Airlines like American that have followed your strategy are not succeeding and their pilots are not benefiting from that strategy. Do you have any explanation for that? We lead the industry in rebuilding the profession and adding jobs in the last 5 years, and yet you say our strategy is failing? Why?

Good questions.

DALPA (LD specifically) has told me not to compare us to SWA, therfore, don't compare us to AA and CAL. Its a two way street.


I'll make the comparison...
How many do you think SWA is gonna be hiring before 2015?

Now.. EVERYBODY is included.

I don't think it matters. I thought there was one loophole, the Republic loophole that allowed planes to be flown at another airline over the MTOW or 76 seats, that being Frontier. I thought the new contract didn't allow other feeders to have larger planes or it risked their feed contracts. FtB still probably thinks I work for Air Grand Canyon, but in reality I don't carry the contract on me, so I come here to ask smarty pants guys like him.

Sorry, but I am not management or ALPA, so stating it like that shows that it is my opinion. As far as specifics in the contract, I know basically what it says, but leave the specifics to guys like ACL.


How is it that you come on here to ask questions and defer to FTB and Acl on the specifics, AFTER THE TA PASSED? Aren't you supposed to do that before you vote? :confused:

Seriously. Before the vote, you basically called every no voter an idiot for not seeing the light and voting "yes" for what you called a no brainer/slam dunk, win-win for the pilots, TA. You were absolutely certain of it. Now a few weeks later you come on here with a bunch of "I don't think's," "I thought's," and "I defer to the smarty pants guys." Huh? :confused:

Shouldn't we be able to defer to you and ask you the questions now?

New K :confused:

ya'll get this?

IF YOU DON'T ALLOW MORE JUMBO RJ'S YOUR JOB IS IN JEOPARDY AND THE AIRLINE GOES THE WAY OF AMERICAN AND CONTINENTAL... wait continental?

Anyways, follow the logic. Just imagine how many more jobs we'd have if we let those 76 seaters become 82 seaters? Or let DCI have larger jets like the E190!!!!

I mean does anyone doubt that a regional could fly 717s cheaper than us since pilot costs are the only costs that matters when comparing us with DCI?

Which is ironic since you get chastised for thinking that 100 seaters are next...



But on that note, ACL or 'you guys', I never remember ACL saying we were going to sell 100 seaters out on this negotiation, do ya'll?

I'd think I'd seen that if it was posted 1,000 times.

Now, the winner would be the person who said we'd outsource 70 more 76-seaters but that's not what's important.

What is important now is we get some more large RJ outsourcing going so that we don't end up in chapter 11 and furlough!

Outsourcing equals more jobs so let's celebrate that we held the lie at 76 seats! no wait, that makes no sense. start again. RJs are good for Delta pilots!!!!

nice rant. :rolleyes:

Now.. EVERYBODY is included.

Kinda like our code share / joint venture / DCI smorgasboard?;)

Wait, you guys all said that the 100 seat jet was going to get sold out on this negotiation. So after you were completely wrong, now you have an absolute prediction for the next negotiation. I mean you said at least 1,000 times about how the 100 seaters were in play in this negotiation and now that they are definitively at mainline, now well, it is just around the corner that they are in play again. You say ALPA plays the fear game?

When did Delta start getting 76 seat jets? When were you hired? How many pilots has Delta hired/recalled/come back from Mil Leave since 2007? What about all the other major airlines? Combined?

If American has this great scope clause that protects jobs, whey do they have 1,900 pilots on furlough? Why have they been furloughed for 10+ years now? In the last 10 years, how many 76 jets have been placed at American? Continental?

It seems to me that you deal in a never ending fear campaign about what is going to happen next, without ever looking at what is happening right now. We just signed this deal for more 76 seat jets. Do you want to take a wager on who hires pilots next Delta or United or American? How about how many are hired?

It just seems to me that you have learned all the wrong lessons, you are hyper focused on one detail and ignore everything else around you. You pride yourself as being some grand thinker who connects the dots, but in the end you view the world through a soda straw and have let this one issue dominate your entire thinking.

You talk about not defending the language or having the language fail. Give examples and then show how that impacted Delta pilot jobs. It seems that all the ex-RJ drivers have an obsession about what they left behind and what is happening to those pilots who are still flying RJ's. This obsession has clouded your thinking until you can no longer make a rational analysis of what is happening. In your world, you count up 76 seat jets and whoever has the lowest number wins. In my view, it is what creates more jobs and what creates better jobs for mainline.

Airlines like American that have followed your strategy are not succeeding and their pilots are not benefiting from that strategy. Do you have any explanation for that? We lead the industry in rebuilding the profession and adding jobs in the last 5 years, and yet you say our strategy is failing? Why?


Great post. The fear campaign continues while black helicopters fly overhead. You are absolutely correct, everyone tries to look ahead two steps, and can't see what is happening now. Poor situational awareness.

we do have 153 76-seaters now and 255 jumbo rjs. We have a total right now of 19 aircraft smaller than th 737-7/319.

which is interesting, because in 2000 how man jumbo RJs were there? backthen we had 172 jets smaller than the 737-7/319.

I mean at 14 pilots per plane, using the numbers that we're using on the 717, that's a net of 2,100+ jobs.

So the question is, how much sooner would ACL have been hired if we had not gotten jumbo RJs and kept a robust fleet of jets smaller than the 737-7/319?

How is it that you come on here to ask questions and defer to FTB and Acl on the specifics, AFTER THE TA PASSED? Aren't you supposed to do that before you vote? :confused:

Seriously. Before the vote, you basically called every no voter an idiot for not seeing the light and voting "yes" for what you called a no brainer/slam dunk, win-win for the pilots, TA. You were absolutely certain of it. Now a few weeks later you come on here with a bunch of "I don't think's," "I thought's," and "I defer to the smarty pants guys." Huh? :confused:

Shouldn't we be able to defer to you and ask you the questions now?

New K :confused:

Again, I state it that way to show it is my opinion. "I think" means my opinion. I do know the new contract, but not the section numbers etc by heart like ACL and the others. Try not to be confused. If you still are, go to section 143GB.143 and look it up yourself. I never proclaimed to be a contract expert, but I knew a good contract when I saw one. It passed.

Kinda like our code share / joint venture / DCI smorgasboard?;)

non sequitor to the subject, but they are under control.. and better with this agreement than had we stayed where we were I might add.

So answer the original question.

Great post. The fear campaign continues while black helicopters fly overhead. You are absolutely correct, everyone tries to look ahead two steps, and can't see what is happening now. Poor situational awareness.

Poor situational awareness is not seeing the ramifications of selling out our profession by allowing OTHER pilots to fly OUR passengers around in 70 more 76 seaters. Kind of like having unprotected sex, great right now but not so great 15 years from now.

ya'll get this?

IF YOU DON'T ALLOW MORE JUMBO RJ'S YOUR JOB IS IN JEOPARDY AND THE AIRLINE GOES THE WAY OF AMERICAN AND CONTINENTAL... wait continental?

Anyways, follow the logic. Just imagine how many more jobs we'd have if we let those 76 seaters become 82 seaters? Or let DCI have larger jets like the E190!!!!

I mean does anyone doubt that a regional could fly 717s cheaper than us since pilot costs are the only costs that matters when comparing us with DCI?

Which is ironic since you get chastised for thinking that 100 seaters are next...



But on that note, ACL or 'you guys', I never remember ACL saying we were going to sell 100 seaters out on this negotiation, do ya'll?

I'd think I'd seen that if it was posted 1,000 times.

Now, the winner would be the person who said we'd outsource 70 more 76-seaters but that's not what's important.

What is important now is we get some more large RJ outsourcing going so that we don't end up in chapter 11 and furlough!

Outsourcing equals more jobs so let's celebrate that we held the lie at 76 seats! no wait, that makes no sense. start again. RJs are good for Delta pilots!!!!


Wow, do you even read what you write, or do you have such an imagination that it doesn't matter. Do you even have a shred of integrity?

I did not say 76 seat jets create jobs, show me where I said that. You claim that 76 seat jets steal jobs. I ask you to prove it. I give you evidence that exactly the opposite has happened over the last 5 years and yet you try to twist my words around to say something I didn't say. You learned form Carl well.

It seems to me that you continue to stand behind a theory that has been proven wrong time after time. So I ask you to provide evidence that your theory is correct. In this negotiation, we worked to ensure that 100 seat aircraft came to mainline. In order to do that Delta needed to reduce DCI capacity. In order to do that, they needed 76 seat jets to entice the DCI carriers to break their contracts.

That was what this negotiation was about. You claim, falsely, that this will steal jobs and result in mainline shrinkage. Prove it. Show some empirical evidence that backs up your theory. You throw around phony numbers from phony spreadsheets and phony analysis and them claim you have some proof. I show you real world evidence that disproves your phony theories and then you try to twist my words into saying I support outsourcing.

That is not what I said. What I showed you was that outsourcing 76 seat aircraft has not shown to have any correlation with mainline growth or mainline jobs. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be true. They can be dependent events (adding 76 seaters causes mainline growth) or independent (adding 76 seaters have no effect one way or the other). You make the definitive claim that mainline growth is directly dependent (in a negative way) upon 76 seat jets and yet your theory has been shown to be false 100% of the time in the real world. Yet you stand behind it.

DALPA supported the merger in part because a larger airline will support upgauging markets and reducing the reliance on outsourcing. That theory has been shown to be true. DCI has lost over 200 aircraft since the merger and every statistic show that mainline is doing a larger share of the domestic flying since then. This agreement accelerates that trend. Instead of looking at real evidence, you stand behind your phony numbers and your discredited theories. These 76 seaters will simply be replacing flying that is done by 50 seaters and more work is being transferred to mainline. Looks like hiring will begin within 6 months or less.

But hey, the truth has never stopped you before, why start now? Maybe you are so angry that your phony theories have been shown to be wrong again you will just lash out. A little childish.

How is it that you come on here to ask questions and defer to FTB and Acl on the specifics, AFTER THE TA PASSED? Aren't you supposed to do that before you vote? :confused:

Seriously. Before the vote, you basically called every no voter an idiot for not seeing the light and voting "yes" for what you called a no brainer/slam dunk, win-win for the pilots, TA. You were absolutely certain of it. Now a few weeks later you come on here with a bunch of "I don't think's," "I thought's," and "I defer to the smarty pants guys." Huh? :confused:

Shouldn't we be able to defer to you and ask you the questions now?

New K :confused:

interesting questions newk.

nice rant. :rolleyes:

thanks.
hard to do on an iphone.

anyways, does beg the old question, where should we draw the line on the size of an outsourced jet? if the reason we outsource is becase they can do it cheaper and that's good for us, why be fools and stop it at 76 seaters?

we do have 153 76-seaters now and 255 jumbo rjs. We have a total right now of 19 aircraft smaller than th 737-7/319.

which is interesting, because in 2000 how man jumbo RJs were there? backthen we had 172 jets smaller than the 737-7/319.

I mean at 14 pilots per plane, using the numbers that we're using on the 717, that's a net of 2,100+ jobs.

So the question is, how much sooner would ACL have been hired if we had not gotten jumbo RJs and kept a robust fleet of jets smaller than the 737-7/319?

Blame 9-11 and the resulting BK. Those were extreme events that changed this industry forever. We parked L1011s early at that time due to those events too, and I guess you will blame ALPA for that? ACL could have been an L10 FE I suppose too, but ALPA didn't do enough to stop them from leaving, after they became uneconomical themselves......

Getting rid of as many outsourced jets as possible should be the main goal. This contract is doing that, along with caps and favorable ratios.

Wow, do you even read what you write, or do you have such an imagination that it doesn't matter. Do you even have a shred of integrity?

I did not say 76 seat jets create jobs, show me where I said that. You claim that 76 seat jets steal jobs. I ask you to prove it. I give you evidence that exactly the opposite has happened over the last 5 years and yet you try to twist my words around to say something I didn't say. You learned form Carl well.

It seems to me that you continue to stand behind a theory that has been proven wrong time after time. So I ask you to provide evidence that your theory is correct. In this negotiation, we worked to ensure that 100 seat aircraft came to mainline. In order to do that Delta needed to reduce DCI capacity. In order to do that, they needed 76 seat jets to entice the DCI carriers to break their contracts.

That was what this negotiation was about. You claim, falsely, that this will steal jobs and result in mainline shrinkage. Prove it. Show some empirical evidence that backs up your theory. You throw around phony numbers from phony spreadsheets and phony analysis and them claim you have some proof. I show you real world evidence that disproves your phony theories and then you try to twist my words into saying I support outsourcing.

That is not what I said. What I showed you was that outsourcing 76 seat aircraft has not shown to have any correlation with mainline growth or mainline jobs. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be true. They can be dependent events (adding 76 seaters causes mainline growth) or independent (adding 76 seaters have no effect one way or the other). You make the definitive claim that mainline growth is directly dependent (in a negative way) upon 76 seat jets and yet your theory has been shown to be false 100% of the time in the real world. Yet you stand behind it.

DALPA supported the merger in part because a larger airline will support upgauging markets and reducing the reliance on outsourcing. That theory has been shown to be true. DCI has lost over 200 aircraft since the merger and every statistic show that mainline is doing a larger share of the domestic flying since then. This agreement accelerates that trend. Instead of looking at real evidence, you stand behind your phony numbers and your discredited theories. These 76 seaters will simply be replacing flying that is done by 50 seaters and more work is being transferred to mainline. Looks like hiring will begin within 6 months or less.

But hey, the truth has never stopped you before, why start now? Maybe you are so angry that your phony theories have been shown to be wrong again you will just lash out. A little childish.

Another good post. This would make a great X-Files movie.

Blame 9-11 and the resulting BK. Those were extreme events that changed this industry forever. We parked L1011s early at that time due to those events too, and I guess you will blame ALPA for that? ACL could have been an L10 FE I suppose too, but ALPA didn't do enough to stop them from leaving, after they became uneconomical themselves......

Getting rid of as many outsourced jets as possible should be the main goal. This contract is doing that, along with caps and favorable ratios.

The L1011 wouldn't have been replaced by a jumbo RJ.

How many DC-9s by the way did NWA have on 31DEC08, i.e. after the merger? As in, how many survived 9/11?

^^^ easy question, look at Delta 2008 10-k, you don't have to have a copy of the contract or access to deltanet to do it. :D

non sequitor to the subject, but they are under control.. and better with this agreement than had we stayed where we were I might add.

So answer the original question.

Damn T, I had to google that one...pretty good for a UT guy:D. As far as SWA hiring I have no idea what their plans or retirement numbers are. I was merely comparing 6th year DAL W2 to a 6th year SWA W2. DALPA told me I wasn't supposed to do that, yet they wanna compare us to AA and CAL wrt scope, pay etc... Grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. I voted no, you voted yes and yet we could still drink beer and talk football all night I'm sure.

Wiki lists the max GW for the various models as between 81.2 and 94.3. For seating the lower end is 78 seats and up well into the 90's and beyond. I'm thinking they will be able to weasel in under our limits though. If not, the company will squeal how they can't make them abide by a contract they (SKYW) never agreed to and it would cost trillions of dollars and liquidate DAL if we enforced it so we'd grant relief anyway.

I'd LOVE to see the FFD welfare plug pulled on that operation and force them to compete (and lose badly) on real airline flying rather than leaching off of the scope clauses of other pilot groups and other brands.

You might want to recheck how the CRJ 900's and E-175 are operated for US Aiways, my understating is that these airplanes are operated at 79 and 80 seats respectively!

The scope in Delta pilot's contract is based on the certificated MGTOW, not the actual MGTOW. Therefore, they may not simply adjust the seats to meet the weight requirement.

You guys...Lol.

Who says that they are gonna be flown for Delta??? :confused:

If they are...it will be under Alaska, under Delta code shared flights.

Look for them to be flown for everybody else BUT Delta.

Can't happen. Not allowed by Delta pilot scope.

Again, I state it that way to show it is my opinion. "I think" means my opinion. I do know the new contract, but not the section numbers etc by heart like ACL and the others. Try not to be confused. If you still are, go to section 143GB.143 and look it up yourself. I never proclaimed to be a contract expert, but I knew a good contract when I saw one. It passed.

You never claimed to be a contract expert and you state it that way to show it is your opinion, but yet days before the vote ended you post this:

You bet, a NO vote will show us quickly it was a wrong choice. You still have time to change your vote ACL, and I bet you will. THINK ABOUT IT. 200 RJs leaving leaves a gap, and that gap will be filled by larger RJs, and then 717s will top those 76 seaters, and we will own mid range regional routes again. Where do you think 88 717s will go? IMAGINE it.

I should try not to be confused?

As far as how to project what is opinion and what is fact, it seems like you might be the confused one, Bill. You use "will" when you should use "I think," or "may/might" and vice-versa. Or, at least I think you do. ;)

If I am confused, it is not about where anything is in the new contract. My confusion, if any, has to do with you and your posts.
Before the TA passed: Brash certainty to the point where you insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.
After the TA passed: Deferential questioning with slight praise of the same people you insulted.

(That type of reversal will get a :confused: from me every time.)

New K

O ok...what section is that under? And what is the exact language?

And do you honestly think that they will not find a way around that?


They call it Section 1. Ya know, Scope? And no, they won't find a way around it. It's black and white.

I'd LOVE to see the FFD welfare plug pulled on that operation and force them to compete (and lose badly) on real airline flying rather than leaching off of the scope clauses of other pilot groups and other brands.

Hahahahaha..."real airline flying"...you`re suck a joke. So the people on your airplane are more valuable than those carried on a regional carriers regional jet? I wish more flying was at the legacy level but i do not wish it at the loss of thousands of jobs (not just crew members). Self centered...me me me. Such a tool!!

Wow, do you even read what you write, or do you have such an imagination that it doesn't matter. Do you even have a shred of integrity?

Why such hate Alfa, why? :D

I did not say 76 seat jets create jobs, show me where I said that.

How about this:

When did Delta start getting 76 seat jets? When were you hired? How many pilots has Delta hired/recalled/come back from Mil Leave since 2007? What about all the other major airlines? Combined?

You claim that 76 seat jets steal jobs. I ask you to prove it. I give you evidence that exactly the opposite has happened over the last 5 years and yet you try to twist my words around to say something I didn't say. You learned form Carl well.

Did you see my post a few minutes ago?

we do have 153 76-seaters now and 255 jumbo rjs. We have a total right now of 19 aircraft smaller than th 737-7/319.

which is interesting, because in 2000 how man jumbo RJs were there? backthen we had 172 jets smaller than the 737-7/319.

I mean at 14 pilots per plane, using the numbers that we're using on the 717, that's a net of 2,100+ jobs.

So the question is, how much sooner would ACL have been hired if we had not gotten jumbo RJs and kept a robust fleet of jets smaller than the 737-7/319?

It seems to me that you continue to stand behind a theory that has been proven wrong time after time. So I ask you to provide evidence that your theory is correct. In this negotiation, we worked to ensure that 100 seat aircraft came to mainline. In order to do that Delta needed to reduce DCI capacity. In order to do that, they needed 76 seat jets to entice the DCI carriers to break their contracts.

What theory? I read the contract and quoted it. I used numbers you provided to test it. The only way it's wrong is if you weren't telling the truth.

As to worked to ensure that 100 seat aircraft came to mainline, where else would it have gone? And given your earlier post, what's wrong with it if it had gone to DCI? After all if they can fly 76-seaters cheaper than us, why not 717s?

As to the buying he 717 via the jumbo rj scope sale/swap with 50 seaters, is that a trend we're going to continue to do? Buy mainline aircraft via outsourcing sales/swaps to make it affordable?

That was what this negotiation was about. You claim, falsely, that this will steal jobs and result in mainline shrinkage. Prove it. Show some empirical evidence that backs up your theory. You throw around phony numbers from phony spreadsheets and phony analysis and them claim you have some proof. I show you real world evidence that disproves your phony theories and then you try to twist my words into saying I support outsourcing.

Again, I said the TA dropped growth for 76-seaters, the 255 cap, and the ratio doesn't require a transfer of flying. Never said we'd furlough.

And you never ever ever show real world evidence, you do as you do here and throw out vitriolic insults, nothing more.

That is not what I said. What I showed you was that outsourcing 76 seat aircraft has not shown to have any correlation with mainline growth or mainline jobs. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be true. They can be dependent events (adding 76 seaters causes mainline growth) or independent (adding 76 seaters have no effect one way or the other). You make the definitive claim that mainline growth is directly dependent (in a negative way) upon 76 seat jets and yet your theory has been shown to be false 100% of the time in the real world. Yet you stand behind it.

See the fleet counts above.

DALPA supported the merger in part because a larger airline will support upgauging markets and reducing the reliance on outsourcing. That theory has been shown to be true. DCI has lost over 200 aircraft since the merger and every statistic show that mainline is doing a larger share of the domestic flying since then. This agreement accelerates that trend. Instead of looking at real evidence, you stand behind your phony numbers and your discredited theories. These 76 seaters will simply be replacing flying that is done by 50 seaters and more work is being transferred to mainline. Looks like hiring will begin within 6 months or less.

I supported the merger.

And if DCI has been doing less and less flying, then we were on the right track. Why throw DCI a life preserver?

But hey, the truth has never stopped you before, why start now? Maybe you are so angry that your phony theories have been shown to be wrong again you will just lash out. A little childish.

You're very angry and I am truly sad for you.

All of this would've been over a long time ago if you could have quoted the contract where it said the growth was not stricken, that the cap was not raised and the ratios absolutely from day 1 (and not IF we grow) require a transfer of flying.

Now, gotta go fly.

Wait, you guys all said that the 100 seat jet was going to get sold out on this negotiation. So after you were completely wrong, now you have an absolute prediction for the next negotiation. I mean you said at least 1,000 times about how the 100 seaters were in play in this negotiation and now that they are definitively at mainline, now well, it is just around the corner that they are in play again. You say ALPA plays the fear game?

No, actually I said there would be no way ALPA would sell those jets. I also stated there was no way we would see more large 70 seat RJ's aircraft et al. I did not see DCI being brought down in one swoop, but I did not expect to see a punt that allowed more large RJ's for 50 seat jets when six months ago the talking points were that these jets were self limiting.

I was wrong on that account. As a result the debate over 100 seat jet/aircraft, whatever will be right when retirements hit. Say that is selling fear, but that is the exact time most of these jets are going to hit the production line.


When did Delta start getting 76 seat jets? When were you hired? How many pilots has Delta hired/recalled/come back from Mil Leave since 2007? What about all the other major airlines? Combined?

What's your point? DAL got 30 or so 76 seat aircraft with LOA 51 correct? We just allowed twice as many in this positive TA alone.

CAL has hired over 2500, FDX over 1000, UPS over 500, DAL about 700, but again, what the point? The point of scope is to perform your branded flying. Market rates are just fine by me. We have to control the market before we can demand new economics. Its a problem mainline created.


If American has this great scope clause that protects jobs, whey do they have 1,900 pilots on furlough? Why have they been furloughed for 10+ years now? In the last 10 years, how many 76 jets have been placed at American? Continental?
That's what happens when you buy an airline(s) that does not serve your network well. Reno and TWA were not the best acquisitions for their network. Most of the furloughs can be attributed to TWA. Some are original AMR but they are the ones that were slotted below some TWA folks.
As for their scope. Hard to compete with the likes of us and LCC keep allowing larger RJ's to be outsourced to the lowest bidders. UAL, LCC and DAL modified their scope to allow larger RJ's. DAL hired in 2007 due to the fact that they were severely mis-utilizing their WB fleet. With the change came the need for pilots. In 2009-2010 they hired because they granted too many LOA's for too many years.

Conversely, CAL has some of the tightest scope amongst the network carriers. They were always number 1 or 2 in the JD Power survey customer satisfaction. More importantly they were profitable, hiring and growing until a merger became evident.


It seems to me that you deal in a never ending fear campaign about what is going to happen next, without ever looking at what is happening right now. We just signed this deal for more 76 seat jets. Do you want to take a wager on who hires pilots next Delta or United or American? How about how many are hired?
No, it will be us. That one is easy. UAL has to absorb their furloughed pilots that are left after over hiring, not having the early outs like we did, and a CH11 trip that was not as successful. RJ's again are not the reason we are hiring. CAL has been growing taking UAL furloughed pilots for some time fwiw.


It just seems to me that you have learned all the wrong lessons, you are hyper focused on one detail and ignore everything else around you. You pride yourself as being some grand thinker who connects the dots, but in the end you view the world through a soda straw and have let this one issue dominate your entire thinking.
Your actually wrong, but that's OK. Its one issue that we seem never to learn on. Constantly allowing larger RJ's without a larger plan is not dealing with the larger issues within SJS.


You talk about not defending the language or having the language fail. Give examples and then show how that impacted Delta pilot jobs. It seems that all the ex-RJ drivers have an obsession about what they left behind and what is happening to those pilots who are still flying RJ's. This obsession has clouded your thinking until you can no longer make a rational analysis of what is happening. In your world, you count up 76 seat jets and whoever has the lowest number wins. In my view, it is what creates more jobs and what creates better jobs for mainline.

Its not about the fewest 76 seat jets, you know that. Its about a plan of action to put DAL pilots in those seats. Job security, and our union protecting top, bottom and middle flying. Not trading one for the other.


Airlines like American that have followed your strategy are not succeeding and their pilots are not benefiting from that strategy. Do you have any explanation for that? We lead the industry in rebuilding the profession and adding jobs in the last 5 years, and yet you say our strategy is failing? Why?

How is that they are following a strategy. Read what I write. If the 76 seat jet count was a short term blip up, then real solutions on how to get our pilots flying those jets on or off the certificate, many would accept it. Its hard for AMR or UCAL to demand or hope to gain that type of deal when we agree to swap out older RJ's for new more efficient ones. Our TA came out and the AMR TA was all but guaranteed to be a little better and a little worse than ours. The DCI jet count may go down, but the sustainability of the outsourcing just gained a new life. If you would have found a way to put DAL pilots in those seats over the next ten to 15 years with an actionable plan, the rationale behind the RJ swap would have made a ton of sense. Instead it is just one swap out that others have hinted would be logical in 2015.

Mainline pilots blaming regional pilots for flying 76-seaters cracks me up.

Mr real airline pilot sir,

Did I ever get to vote on scope? Did I ever get asked for my opinion ?

Was it your (mostly the most senior guys) pilot group who signed away scope for short term gains or mine?

In closing, should you be p***ed at me or should I be p***ed at you knowing that because of your vote I'm flying a 76-seater to Minneapolis tomorrow instead of sitting reserve on the 75 right now ..

At least our FA's are in their early 20's and hot.. I guess I should thank you for that, since by voting the way you voted the last 10 years you made sure I'll be flying regional Jumbo's for years to come instead of me being a junior F/O on your side of the fence now ..

Corporate greed combined with a me me me mentality for short term gain will destroy this industry and this nation.

Flame away boss.

Respectfully,

SkyWest Sees Mitsubishi Order Kicking Off Fleet Renewal- Bloomberg (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/skywest-sees-mitsubishi-order-kicking-off-fleet-renewal.html?cmpid=yhoo)

May have been posted already ....but non the less here it is

They call it Section 1. Ya know, Scope? And no, they won't find a way around it. It's black and white.

That's funny right there....

303flyboy

WITHOUT your regional experience, you assume you would be a mainline pilot. Is that right?

GF

FtB still probably thinks I work for Air Grand Canyon, but in reality I don't carry the contract on me, so I come here to ask smarty pants guys like him.

Is that the same as Grand Canyon Airlines? DHC-6? Good times before Canyon-3.

Baja.

..........At least our FA's are in their early 20's and hot.. I guess I should thank you for that, since by voting the way you voted the last 10 years you made sure I'll be flying regional Jumbo's for years to come instead of me being a junior F/O on your side of the fence now .......

The only true "regional jumbo" out there right now is the MD-88..... and it doesn't care about anything.:D

That's funny right there....

So is you assuming they will. :rolleyes: