This is not really a DALPA / DPA subject, but eh'
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
And yet these horrible ALPA policies have produced the most hiring of any airline going through Chapter 11. Perhaps the most hiring of any legacy airline since 05. Might even be more hiring then SW. We have serious problems with scope. That is true. What you fail to acknowledge and DPA will have to acknowledge once they look at the numbers is that a airline has to have feed.
The flying has been driven almost entirely by retirements, which were the result of management policies (coordinated with ALPA) to reduce costs. Several thousand more pilots would be on the property if Contract 2000 scope had not been modified.
We agree that Delta needs feed. We disagree that it must be staffed by someone other than a Delta pilot.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
If tomorrow we could take back every single aircraft flying a Delta passenger do you think we will have a net gain or loss of jobs? If the job count stays neutral will we have a net gain or loss of pay. To many pilots over simplify scope to the point that every RJ is a job lost. That is simply not the case.
There are some feeder markets where flights would continue if we took the flying. There are many other markets where the flights would end because they would not be cost competitive. This is a brutal industry where a few dollars on a ticket price can silence your reservation phones. Now you have lost both the RJ flight and passengers feed to mainline flights. The end result is not good.
ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS. Many of us have long proposed cost neutral recovery of flying, as outlined in the supporting argument for the "Compass Question." Bring them on board under CURRENT contracts. Then, if someone wants to bid that flying they can, if they choose not to, they don't. Let the Delta pilots perform Delta flying.
Any interesting fact is that Pinnacle recently revised guidance to its investors, stating that Delta was allowing them to pass through the cost of increased pilot working agreements. So, as they RJ pay goes up, it is now mother Delta that pays for that too.
The cost of ground support is the same, done by the same people. The only cost change in bringing this flying on board is getting rid of redundant management structures.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
We certainly had that line moved far to the right by John Malone(current DPA supporter) when he allowed the E170/175 at the mainline. That gross weight increase in LOA 46 was in my mind the biggest single failure of scope for Dalpa and the Delta pilots. I don't however have access to the cost data used to approve it.
I do know that with the smaller RJ's we can't operate them within a country mile of the contracted costs
Which is it? Do you know the cost data? Then don't accept the political justification.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
Where is my persona break on scope? Its the E170/175. I believe they should be at the mainline. I think we can operate them and not lose the flying because our costs are to high. Do I have any data to back that up. Not a damn thing. I will however rely on my fellow pilots who are elected to get that data and make the right choices be they Dalpa or DPA.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The "union" perspective should be unity. We can not have unity while we look around a meeting and guess who's jobs are going to be saved, or outsourced, by the Reps sitting there at the table. I enthusiastically support those who support my job, I want to recall those who want to outsource it. That's my personal break.
Delta pilots perform all Delta flying should be the goal. Sure, we will have to compromise, but we should always want perfect scope and work towards unity when the opportunity is there (like Compass was).
IMO - UNITY must come before economics.