Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
One point I agree with in that ROAR article is that given the state of our current contract recapturing the 76 seat flying would just cost to much. The author is dead on when he states this. Pay will come first.
Sometimes people do not like the facts, but those are the facts.
Simply put, we need to get a 100 seat jet on mainline. It needs to be viable for the company, and that means a lot of things. Many of them I have spent considerable time trying to educate people about. None of it is a "B" scale. People that state that do not understand what that means.
Really?
Please provide your numbers, or ALPA's economic analysis of recovery, or even your wild guess as to what the variables involved are. The author is wrong and don't you go floating down the main stream to the septic tank with him.
FIRST: Everyone repeat with me - JOB SECURITY IS NOT BARGAINING CAPITOL. Again, JOB SECURITY IS NOT BARGAINING CAPITOL. Our scope sould not be used to benefit one pilot at the expense of another pilot.
SECOND: D-ALPA has gone out of its way to avoid doing economic analysis on recovery. Even when it is their job to perform economic evaluation prior to entering bargaining, they have failed to do so. They aren't dumb. They avoid economic analysis on issues they do not want to confront. There is no way anyone can know "recovering the 76 seat flying would just cost too much" when no one has seriously studied it and no economic analysis has been done. If I'm wrong then put up the data to shut me up.
THIRD: The article in the ROAR concludes with the assertion that there are "mainline" standard jobs and those that are not. Yet, no one has ever defined that "mainline" standard in objective terms. It changes from administration to administration, pilot to pilot, everyone has an opinion. (in fairness, the writer's opinion seems to be 100 seats) As a LCA you know you made more than your MD88 LCA who did your IOE. Do you think $145,000 a year isn't mainline? Who makes that decision and how is it made? It is a crucial fulcrum in the scale on outsourcing and yet, it remains completely amorphous. How can anyone run an evaluation without that variable filled in?
FOURTH: ALPA is at risk of losing its ability to be the exclusive representative of "Delta Flying" to Delta Air Lines. Not only do we risk our exclusivity by outsourcing so many jobs, by failing to understand and exert our rights under the Railway Labor Act and how important the position of ALPA President is.
FIFTH: Because we fail to understand our tools, we don't know how to use them.
As you point out, Delta could staff jets in their operation across Certificates and across ownership structures. I don't particularly care who buys the jet as long as Delta pilots exclusively fly the the thing. If we pursued unity, from a pure labor standpoint, we could fly across Certificates and cost the Company very nearly nothing.
What is the cost differential of a flow through agreement compared to a "Temporary Duty Assignment" ?
Probably nothing. But, rather than flowing down to Mesaba, or Compass, or Republic, wouldn't you MUCH rather be a Delta pilot on temporary assignment who still was an ALPA member, who still voted, wearing a Delta uniform and pulling for the Delta team? Most importantly one option preserves unity, increases our power, protects our pilots' jobs and one option does not.
How much money to we **** away on stupid outsourcing contracts which constrain our corporate flexibility and add billions in contract liabilities to our balance sheet?
You just can't say it costs too much when no one has studied it. That's quitting without even trying.
Sorry to bust your nuts, but you of all people know better.