Originally Posted by
Scoop
You bring up some very good points. My criteria for improving Scope is simple (the following numbers are notional): If for example we currently fly 65% of the passengers who purchase a DAL ticket and after the upcoming contract we will improve to say 70% or 75% with locked in minimums then we have improved Scope. Could this happen with more 76 seaters - yes.
The more passengers that fly on DAL metal - the quicker the stagnation will end. While it especially burns me to see DCI flying so many of our passengers to some very big cities, in reality it is really no different than Alaska or Air France, etc flying our passengers.
How much of that 5-10% swing in our favor was going to happen anyway though? Many 50's are going to be parked. The company wants them parked. I'm against giving more DC-9 replacment jets to DCI to enable them to park more 50 seaters a few years faster. Also eventually, and at least for a little bit, the production balance from AF/KLM/AZ will swing back in our favor by several percentage points. We will get much or all of that 5-10% swing anyway eventually.
To even entertain the threat that the company will offshore the entire holding company to the Emirates ponzi scheme or whatever if we don't give in to more 76 seaters at DCI is pure nonsense. To think they have that leverage in the first place, and then to think that if they do that they will completely give it up just for more 76 seaters is even less logical.
Production balance can't be the only or even the primary yardstick we use. If that were true, we could increase the balance dramatically by insourcing all RJ's but outsourcing all 777's and 747's. Give up a few dozen planes and get a few hundred planes. What an epic block hour win, right? If production balance is the key as some claim, then outsourcing the top of the pyramid would produce the most bang for the buck. By far. So should we do that? And I'm not talking nebulous JV's...think Mesa with super premium widebodies, bidding to be the lowest among Kalitta, North American and 2 or 3 non union first year start ups, right here in the USA at Delta Connection International. Shouldn't that be the goal, as long as the production balance increases?
If not, why is it OK to sell management the lower end of the DC-9 range of mainline flying but not OK to sell management fewer pilot positions in larger equipment?
Selling flying to protect flying won't work long term. If the company has the leverage to shred the pilot group with ease with foreign labor busters, does anyone really think they will give all that up and give us peace in our time just for more 76 seaters?
All areas of scope have to be improved IMHO or we start the clock and work diligently towards a release to self help in full section 6 negotiations and strike for as long as it takes to fix these career oriented issues. The RLA is a long and unfair process but our CBA with early opening and accelerated timetables to mediation put us years ahead already. Putting a dirty infected band aid on the wound and having to deal with next contract with even more core domestic lift outsourced...when you KNOW they will want more large RJ's just like they do today...is a very poor long term stratedgy.