Originally Posted by
tsquare
Good grief people, you are picking apart my numbers as if it were some sort of legitimate proposal. I am talking in conceptual ideas here to illustrate a point of something that might be acceptable while doing what some would call a concession on scope. "Not one more seat, inch or pound" is NOT a negotiating strategy, because it is unrealistic. IMHO. I'm done with this.
I get what you're saying, as most others probably do. To make your point a little clearer, may I take it one step farther?
** Hypothetically ** We allow the company to outsource one 77 seat aircraft, but every other RJ must immediately be parked on signing (or brought to mainline). We relaxed our seat limit (by 1, for one airframe), but significantly tightened up narrowbody scope overall. In that case, I think most guys would consider it a win.
The heartburn that everyone feels here, myself included, is by simply making the hypothetical trade above, we have continued to concede that scope is negotiable. What most guys desperately want to hear is that:
1. We are sick of this outsourcing experiment
2. We are tied to the long-term viability of Delta and have a very real interest in the brand (arguably more than any mgmt team ever will)
3. Delta pilots will fly Delta passengers
My major concern is that once this stagnation period ends around 2017, that guys will be riding high on retirement advancement and being concerned about scope will fall out of fashion. Of course that will only work until the music stops again, and we're all stuck in whatever seat we end up in (kinda like now). My point is NOW is the time to reverse the scope damage that's been done. We are negotiating with a profitable company, and there really won't be a better time to get this done.
I agree with you that everything is negotiable, but unless it involves some serious tightening of scope, I'm not interested. Call me a 1 issue voter if you want, but this is too important to put off until later.