Originally Posted by
gloopy
I get that C2K didn't single handedly create the current state of outsourcing from a previous outsource-free lockbox. But C2K was largely focused on "United plus" payrates. Scope was a huge issue then as 50 seaters were being delivered limited only by factory production lines but that's all that was being outsourced. The Bach/Avro jets were gone and the 70 seat CRJ was in its final testing phases with none on property yet, the 90 seat CRJ was a couple years away and any EMB over 50 seats was even further from reality. It was the perfect time to lock that in but instead the direction chosen was to focus on pay rates and call it a victory when they were achieved. What little negotiating capital that was spent on scope was largely wasted worrying about what "stage lengths" and "hub to hub" the soon to be obselete 50 seaters could do. Had more attention been paid to scope, we would likely have a DC-9 replacement jet at mailine by now. Then again as recently as the CPZ divesture, that language was given away faster than 3.b.6 (the "hammer") was for "United plus".
Hey, I'm no expert on scope. The synopsis I posted came from someone who is very knowledgeable on this issue and knows the history of it at Delta very well. From what I read, it looks to me like the really big mistakes came with LOA 46 and especially LOA 51 and after. Everybody always points to C2K as the source of the problem and they make the assertion that we traded scope for pay. I guess you can sort of say that, in that C2K scope was less than perfect and we got big pay increases. But I don't think "trading scope for pay" was the intention of the agreement or the intention of those who voted for it. Nobody could have foreseen 9/11 and the severe economic situation that resulted in the scope resets. And to keep pointing to C2K as if it was a huge mistake on scope and that the pay increases were all for naught... well, I just don't think that's accurate. Hindsight being 20/20... of course we should have nailed down scope better with C2K. But from what it looks like to me, the place we really let scope get away from us was after C2K. The assertion that we took C2K pay and were willing to allow the bottom end of our seniority list to be outsourced (furloughed) in exchange for those pay rates... that just doesn't seem to hold water from what I remember and from the synopsis I posted.
Of course, it's all water under the bridge at this point. Except what I think matters is that we not make more mistakes going forward. That's why I don't want people leading us going forward who have the same philosophy as the people who helped get us into so much trouble. We need to learn from the past and focus on the future.