Originally Posted by
slowplay
If you want the numbers as proof, get yourself appointed and confirmed to the MEC codeshare committee. You won't be able to continue "for profit" work in any venue that could use those numbers, but if it is truly your concern then it should be a small sacrifice to make. I know you've heard from multiple sources that the numbers exist and were validated several different ways. The result doesn't comport with what you believe, but the numbers are what they are.
I don't treat it as a "trite notion." I've worked to do something about it, and our last contract had significant scope recapture on both ends. Your comment is uncalled for. One other point, we are where we are, not where you wish us to be. Any solution (business plan) that you bring has to recognize that.
Now why would I do that? Even you've admitted in posts here that our Scope has improved. And where is that fight going to be? Between anonymous pseudonyms on a webboard or where it might actually make a difference...in discussions with the MEC and DCI pilot groups plus Delta and DCI management?
Again, a wish without a strategy is just a wish (or as I term "bleat"). We are agreed that unity pays better than disunity. But you've got to start from where we are, Bar. And you've got to bring all the players along, not just the ones that you believe will agree with you.
We agree on these points (and I think we are paraphrasing each other)... you bring up a good point that most on these boards do not appreciate, that ALPA work is a sacrifice. It costs real money to volunteer time.
My sources are those available to any line pilot, unless a client pushes open a door. I've no idea if Delta management, or our MEC has updated numbers, but reiterate the problem is developing a model which includes all of the cost factors inherent in the creation of a highly inefficient system for the net purpose of diluting our association's bargaining leverage.
When I sit down with the contracts, say for a US Air / American F4D carrier it is noted that different agreements have completely different compensation (revenue) structures. Most are created to pay the F4D carrier a reimbursement which is below their cost. Profits come from hitting bonus money for completion factor, on time and other metrics valued by the contractor. It is fascinating to go through the data to see how F4D carriers use their resources to game the system ... and sometimes how poorly that works out for the client airline and their passengers. Admittedly my models are soda straws, still when I compare the hourly costs to what Delta reports on Form 41 we are a lot closer than 32% CASM. In fact, it's down to re configuring the airplanes to reach something close to parity.
There is a better way forward. It is
our job to find it.
I'm fine with the idea of reducing labor uncertainty. If that is the case then management has no incentive to continue funding redundant structures which exist for the sole purpose of distributing Delta flying to non Delta pilots.
I would like a model that could even answer questions like; "if we recovered flying, would it make Cincinnati a larger base for Delta pilots? Would perhaps Dallas, or another city like Orlando, be viable?" That probably goes beyond my database skills, but it would be a cool tool none the less.