Originally Posted by
John Carr
YEAH, I KNOW. That's what I was referencing when I mentioned the RJ's coming online, and mainline MEC's not retaining that flying and passing them down to the "commuters". Gotta give the courtesy of reading all that was written.
You wrote
Originally Posted by
John Carr
came into fruition during the BK era and lasts till today.
Mr. Carr,
No need for you to be rude.
The distinction is important. This model did not come into fruition during bankruptcy. Many would lead you to believe that somehow this level of outsourcing was forced during bankruptcy, but it wasn't:
- Contract 2000 scope was signed during good times. However, it appears to have been written with knowledge that it would be violated quickly. In simplified terms it required a 3 to 1 ratio of mainline to express flying. Delta had committed to 500 RJ's. Did anyone expect 1,500 growth mainline jets to arrive? Did anyone expect a mainline fleet of 2,100 aircraft?
- Contract 2000 scope failed within 6 months and was renegotiated approximately 4 years prior to bankruptcy
- Prior to bankruptcy two agreements were reached allowing increased outsourcing
- At both NWA and Delta, the respective negotiators applied "credits" for increased outsourcing
- Those agreements were negotiated and ratified
This is not to say ALPA and the negotiating teams were not under enormous pressure. ALPA's attorneys were correct when they stated judges very well could invalidate labor protective provisions during bankruptcy. We saw in American's bankruptcy the Judge did invalidate their scope. American's end state was very close to what the NWA and Delta MECs negotiated, but NWA and DAL pilot reps were more effective, sooner, for their constituents.
The reason this distinction remains important is that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Today we are in "good times" and we are again reliant on ratios and seat numbers. In the past this strategy failed when tested by economic duress. The current numbers are more sound, but the strategy itself remains less than optimal.
The only structurally sound answer is to separate unity from economics. Economic solutions change constantly. Unity, as a moral imperative, is absolute.