Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
It's OK to quantify.
They lost longevity and potentially job security. We lost jobs, the corresponding representational relevance and set the outsourcing bar a bit higher by weight & capability.
I would like to know what, if anything, we got for it.
They didn't lose longevity because they never had it. They had the same two choices then as they have now: go to DL and start over or stay at CPZ if you want to keep your longevity. I know you want outsourced RJ pilots to be able to come to mainline at full longevity but that's never going to happen unless we fix scope first and get those seat and weight ranges back and eliminate the number of allowed outsourced airframes. Until then, no RJ pilot is ever going to slide over to DL at top scale with full YOS credits.
As for job security, they could have been sold at any time. Although we did give up the "we demand a DC9 replacement" (whatever that was going to end up meaning) so in that respect we did give up something of theoretical but unproven and unknown value.
As for representational relevance, all that looked like was yet another DFR suit waiting to happen.
You're right about the weight limit being set a bit higher but regardless of what happened with CPZ, the flow (which was kept) or their place on the DL MEC, we had already sold that flying to management. They were part of 255 large RJ's 153 of which can be over 70 seaters. Nothing would have changed that, even if they were on our MEC today.
Its messed up in many ways, but we need to bring the flying back first. Its ours and we own the claim to it; no one else. Unless and until we take it back on our end, it really doesn't matter what MEC represents a low bidding ACMI provider, other than it makes it a little harder for them to sue us now I suppose.