Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
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.
If I alone were King, my opener would be simply. "Delta pilots perform all Delta flying." Then I would go on to define Delta flying in as broad a terms as could be conceived ... and negotiate from that position of unity and strength.
The place to start is within our own LECs. We need to continuously, vigorously and doggedly lobby our own Reps, convincing them that the only solution is one which unifies Delta flying and Delta pilots. We need to stay on this out sourcing issue like Michael Moore stays on a Cheeseburger, until it is all gone.
Frankly, we do not have the will to use the tools at our disposal. Until we build that will in our Representatives, our own thoughts on leverage mean very little. Frankly, a nationwide SOS against the RLA is long over due, but no one is going there (and I'm not suggesting it).
So, if I may proffer "Plan C" which is pretty much what we are doing here. Communicating, supporting our Reps and holding ALPA accountable for results.