Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Nothing was taken out of context. You asked for opinions to gauge a response to a proposal that in your opinion improved scope by allowing larger jets to be outsourced in exchange for fewer in number. Pilots piled on with opinions that your proposal was not something that they would find acceptable. When your trial balloon came back shot full of holes you took it personally and responded with a promise to deliberately misrepresent people in the future.
Don't know how you determine standard deviation from comments on this board (which were unanimous against your concept). Perhaps you are privy to the survey data which shows pay as by far the leading interest of Delta pilots. If so, consider that the survey did not consider whether a scope concession was an immediate existential threat to ALPA as the bargaining agent for Delta pilots going forward.
I support ALPA, but more so, I support my fellow pilots (even you). Unity does not allow more outsourcing, even if fewer 70 seaters (ahem ... unwanted 50 seaters) balance the deal.
Okay, what leverage (outside of my brilliantly conceived PR campaign) do we have to reduce scope other than refusing to sign a TA? Which I am on the record as being fine with.
So the question is would you approve this:
A) Status quo, 618 regional jets, 255 seating 51+, 153 seating 76, plus Alaska codeshare, or
B) 200 regional jets total, cap at 0 50 seaters, max 200 76 seaters, no Alaska codeshare.
What would you guys chose?
I'd chose B and have no problem saying that. It's a gain, assuming plan A didn't work then plan B, negotiate and increase flying here and decrease it there.
And why concentrate just on the 76 seater, the 70 seater is just as damaging and interchangeable and we have 255 in total of those. So give up 6 seats on 47 airplanes and eliminate 418 others. I'll be honest, if someone said A and we stood our ground that's fine, either way is not a loss from what we have now. But I'd prefer a gain.