Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
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.
Bar; agreed but each and every pilot get as say. Those are the facts I am referring to. I just do not see guys willing to forgo a raise to capture that flying. If the opportunity presented itself without that cost, maybe. I would love to see it happen, but he is right that the cost is too great. I know you do not like that, I do not either, but as you do, I only have one vote.
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, ie, they were wrong. There is no way you 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.
I bet you are wrong, and maybe Slow will jump in here to tell you that.
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. 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?
As stated above the point I agree with is the point that the cost is to great to be the primary focus of 2012. Period.
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.
Not going to argue that.
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?
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.
Bar;
As you know I agree with the majority of you points. There are many parts of the article I disagree with and you know that. We discussed that today.
for starters:
Flows do not work, and it is a nice way to rest longevity. It will probably work for us as the flow will be one way in the years ahead, but that does not mean it is true unity. You know where I stand on that.
In regards to studying it:
That is simple. I do not see us swallowing the cost to the rest of the contract that we would have to take to regain the flying. It is that simple. The argument is not framed the way I want it to be. We have talked about that as well. It is not about studying it. It is what the company would require us to give up to gain it, not what the true cost would be. Remember not what we are worth but what is negotiated.
If D-ALPA was willing to take the highest DCI book rates and put it here, you are correct. Alas, it is not totally about our costs. It is the total cost. The ugly truth is that the majority of the cost differences are in the rest of the airline costs.
You and I both want to find a way to make it happen. The issue is that many of our counterparts want to make 2012 about money. Keep the line on scope and give me money and work rule improvements.
And Bar, for the record I am not floating down the stream to the septic tank with him. I am stating that his one point is correct. As for the rest, start a new thread.