Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
As for economic analysis. I believe that many people have been giving it. A lot of the data is skewed, because of how and what we has the parent company pay for with these DCI carriers. The fact is that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on guaranteed margins for these DCI carriers. That is profit that we at DAL could be making with the flying done in house.
I get that we have contracts that in some instances go for another 13 years. I think it would be quite simple to state that once these contracts expire scoped flying would then come back in house.
Is it a lofty goal? Yes, but it is one that needs to be fought. We have for far to long let it be the one issue we will cave in on. As the DC-9 goes away we have no mainline replacement for it. "Nothing works." Well I think that the E-series and C-series are good answers to this. Heck even the CRJ-900 and 1000 would be a good answer to it, if flown by mainline.
I just want to know, and I ask this humbly, "Why is scope not an issue that if fought for tooth and nail."
Scope is important, but RJ flying is not all of scope and RJ flying is not any more important than any other section of our contract. It may be to you, but there are 12,400 pilots and they all don't have the same priorities as you. So my answer back is what section of the contract should not be fought for tooth and nail.
I am with you on recapturing the 70-76 flying. If you can't tell, I have been thinking about this for a long time. It won't happen overnight, it won't happen this year, and it may take a long time. That's why I say you would be better off concentrating on building a business case and less time making LEC resolutions and web board postings.
This will be solved as a business decision (think brand management and cost control) and not an industrial decision. There are lots of issues to work through to get from A to B. Identify those issues and identify solutions to those issues. If you are willing to fight tooth and nail, then work on that.