the point is that under the scope clause the ONLY planes that were allowed over the 86,000 lbs were CPZ airplanes. It clearly states that those planes were the exemption. Therefore these planes will be in violation of the SCOPE language.
I guess I might be missing the boat but who really cares about weights and why? Wouldn't seat count be all that matters? I guess you could say "well they could fly further" but then again that would just be a much a higher increase in cost with no increase in seat availability. Seems like there's other issues more important to be battled at the moment.
ToiletDuck,
I care. Because those planes are currently prohibited from flying a Delta code unless they are flown by Delta pilots. So, if Delta management wants to use them, fine; put a Delta pilot in the seat. Otherwise, NO.
Scope matters in every respect and I'm tired of the erosion that has occurred over the past ten years.
(and it's not anymore, since the MEC gave it away)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
I guess I might be missing the boat but who really cares about weights and why? Wouldn't seat count be all that matters? I guess you could say "well they could fly further" but then again that would just be a much a higher increase in cost with no increase in seat availability.
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
(and it's not anymore, since the MEC gave it away)
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
(and it's not anymore, since the MEC gave it away)
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
I don't think those will ever happen. SLC-ATL isn't a secondary city route, for example. Its two Delta hubs connecting. MEM to LAX? Again, two Delta hubs (now) connecting. If you want to see what happens to a largely CJ hub see CVG. A ghost town (and not because of mainline desertion). Comair is the company parking jets, not mainline Delta.
I'm not one to condone reduced scope. But, I deal with reality. Ain't gonna happen. Pax are sick of smaller jets. That was a fad that is fading quickly. Plus, Delta has figured out that mainline jets are more efficient.
I do not care how you slice this one, it is cut and dry.
Not always.
At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.
The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.
The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.
What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).
Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)
I don't think those will ever happen. SLC-ATL isn't a secondary city route, for example. Its two Delta hubs connecting. MEM to LAX? Again, two Delta hubs (now) connecting. If you want to see what happens to a largely CJ hub see CVG. A ghost town (and not because of mainline desertion). Comair is the company parking jets, not mainline Delta.
I'm not one to condone reduced scope. But, I deal with reality. Ain't gonna happen. Pax are sick of smaller jets. That was a fad that is fading quickly. Plus, Delta has figured out that mainline jets are more efficient.
Just saying...
This isnt about comair and 50 seaters though. It about RAH flying 170s with increased weights meaning they CAN do the longer flights that was mentioned. PAX hate flying on the 50 seaters but the they dont mind the 170/175s. Have you ridden in the back of one? They are nice planes that should have been at Mainline in the first place and flown by mainline pilots.
At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.
The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.
The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.
What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).
Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)
What is cut and dry is this. It is a true violation of the contract. We have specific language to which aircraft may be above the GW limit and which may not be. It is not subject to how they see what is a high water mark v/s a/c on property at delivery. This section does not have any of that sort of language in it.
Similar Threads
Here's why 89,000 pounds was a big deal
Linear Mode
