Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
In hindsight, ALPA should have fought to have the RJ flying done by Delta pilots. Delta's core business is flying passengers; "Connection" is a core business.
MEC Chairman Chuck Giambusso stated that military pilots would not want to fly at Delta if the airline offered E120 or RJ jobs as a starting position. He did not see the regional flying as "Delta" flying. His opinion formed the basis for separating the work and thus, the union and our airline.
In other words, Capt. Giambusso put the career path of military pilots ahead of the air line pilots he represented. It was a strategic error that put a couple thousand of his pilots on the street as Delta replaced the early JT8D powered jets (727 & 737-200).
... and before the senior chorus sings the "management did not want a merger" verse, I am speaking only to ALPA's position. ALPA's responsibility is to speak for pilots that it represents. The truth is that the mainline MECs (all of them) did not see a E-175 or a C Series coming. Among the airplanes that did exist at the time (E120, ATR, Dash 8) only the Pan Am pilots realized scope is first an issue of unity.
I spoke with Chuck about scope on several occasions. I never head him express your sentiment. What was discussed and has always beent he issue is can the flying be done at a cost point by the mainline here you did not simply lose the flying entirely. Its the issue this forum never wants to discuss. To many assume that if we simply had never given a inch on scope and somehow the company would not have been able to force the issue all the feeder jobs would be at the mainline today. That is simply not the case. If you can't compete on a cost basis the flying would not be at the mainline it would be gone along with that feed requiring further reductions in mainline flying.
Bucking Bar makes a great point with Pan AM. Look how well requiring all flying in house worked for them. They died a long slow death never able to build or generate the feed needed to sustain the rest of the airline. Many international flights are only profitable because of the last 10 passengers boarded. Lose those 10 passengers and you lose the route evenutally. If you can't pick those passengers up in very small cities and move them to the hub on a cost effective basis your doomed as Pan Am proved.
There are no easy answers on scope. There is a line where it simply can't be done at the mainline and maintained. Where that line is actually at is the 10,000 dollar question. I think Delta has over reached with the E170/175 that the pre Moak DALPA administration allowed at DCI. I don't however think that the CRJ 50 and 70 seater could be flown and sustained by the mainline. I know Bucking Bar disagrees however the numbers have been costed out over and over again and we never came close. In fact if you could make the numbers work then management would have flown the aircraft at the mainline. They would have had a better product and total control. Harry Algier was in part fired for his insistance that we try and do all jet flying at Delta. I listened to him give a speech on why we should do that that Bucking Bar would have loved. He did however concede that it would require enormous cost reductions from a pilot standpoint to make it work.