Originally Posted by
Denny Crane
I don't think there is anything "temporary" about it. I think it's a result of the company getting the 717's and getting rid of the 50 seaters. Whether you think Delta would have gotten these with or without C2012, it's a moot point. We are getting them and the ratio of flying is definitely swinging in mainline's favor, contractually. Yes, economics has something to do with it, management has finally realized the economics of the RJ are not what they wish for so they are upgauging. As far as regulatory factors, I think the 1500 hour rule is HUGE! It looks like they cannot, or soon will not, be able to staff DCI properly. (On a side note, maybe this is why they haven't purchased all the new 76 seaters they can...) The only "temporary" factor I see is possibly the economic one and, as a whole, I don't think the economy is going gangbusters anyway.
You are absolutely right, what makes scope changes permanent are changes to the scope clause... It's just now the shoe is on the other foot so to speak. In Contract 2012 some were willing to use some negotiating capital to limit RJ scope and others were not. It just seems to me that many of us have changed our viewpoints (on both sides). I'm now of the opinion we should negotiate more restrictive scope, just not use any negotiating capital to do so. (As many on this forum expressed in the C2012 discussions.)
Denny
Denny;
The MEC directs the negotiating committee for section 6 using our secret surveys. This is just my viewpoint, but as to highlight number 2, scope is more than just RJs, DALPA closed the loophole that RAH was violating, 3 year JV lookback was added, bigger RJs were allowed, and the other scope changes were (contractually) losses (IMO) regardless of the decrease in hulls/RJ jobs. Its what's on paper that counts. What we have on paper has continuously devolved.
Bullet 3, Again, scope is more than RJs, The JV is out of whack, Virgin Atlantic is still fuzzy, and the language still allows outsourcing domestically (AK and RJs). Regardless, I am not convinced that the MEC is interested in solidifying section 1 except as the company requests.
Bullet 1, the economy factor is definitely a big issue. The Eurozone is certainly destabilized with growing factions desiring to return to a debt reset with re-nationalized currency, Japan is still in the doldrums, Russia is re-USSR-ing, and Chinese growth has crested the wave. The US is stagnant, but money is cheap, I still see the possibility of a second recession about a year out...
You are right that at this point C12 is moot. If the economy re-tanks, we do (at least) have flowback protections in the contract (practically speaking, that's almost as good as having 76 seaters on the property). However, using negotiating capital to solidify section 1 is the best use of said capital IMO. I don't think it would take too much negotiating to really have some section 1 wins in the current environment.
I am FOR solidifying the language in section 1 and using some capital to do it.