Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Today, Delta is flying 3 757-300's and 2 757's from MSP to SEA. Some of those aircraft will fly with the Alaska code on it. If you are going to have a code share then both sides are going to have to have some benefits. Why would Alaska management or the Alaska pilots ever agree to a deal where Delta gets to "own" flying in their hubs, but Alaska doesn't get to "own" flying in their hubs.
Using your analogy, the Alaska pilots should be offended by all those A-330's and 767's flying out of their hub in Seattle.
If Delta did not have a code share, what is the chance that Alaska would not fly from MSP to SEA? We don't have a code share with American and I see them flying from MSP to DFW, ORD, and other hubs. Is that a Scope Failure?
alfa,
Like it or not, you, pineapple, and sailing or slow (I can't remember which one) are equated to be the ALPA insiders on APC, so forgive me if I confuse what one of you said earlier with what someone else said.
But, one of you told me that the reason Alaska was allowed to fly to Atlanta and Minneapolis from Seattle is because of scope language that NWA brought to the merger. If this is the case, pre-merger I NEVER remember seeing an Alaska airplane in Minneapolis. On the other hand, I do remember Alaska attempting to fly an NWA route (I can't remember which one), NWA pilots not being happy with it, and NWA responding by putting a daily 747-200 flight from SEA to ANC. Subsequently, Alaska Airlines changed their mind about flying the NWA route. (Maybe someone can refresh my memory on the details again. I'm getting old.)
Back then we flew EVERY flight between MSP and SEA and Alaska management and their pilots didn't have a problem with it. So, I'm not using analogies, I'm comparing the past to the present.
Presently, Alaska Airlines pilots are flying routes that we used to fly exclusively. In the past, they did not. So, presently I don't particularly care who would or should be offended by us doing the same flying out of the same places we used to fly out of now. What I do care about is what appears to be a loss of flying that we are more than capable of performing. If it is a loss of flying, the way I see it, we (DALPA) should be the offended ones. But, for some reason, we are not.
Obviously, something has changed. But, I wonder if it is the language and terms of our scope agreement or if it is the mindset of our DALPA leaders.
I just don't remember our scope agreement changing.