Scoop

Alfa,

This is a complicated issue that does not lend itself to an easy comparison. As you well know, Scope is just one factor among many when it comes to hiring. I was hired in early 2000 and furloughed during the "Scope Sale." My furlough, along with that of over 1000 other DAL pilots was the result of many factors, not just Scope, but to be sure - weak Scope was definitely one of them.

Yes UAL and AMR had far more, and much longer lasting furloughs than DAL, but I feel this had more to do with DAL guys taking early outs for the lump sum then anything that had to do with our Scope.

I voted yes for this TA because in my opinion it improved Scope. Even so, I must admit I was not happy with more 76 seat Jets being outsourced, but all in all I thought it was an improvement, mainly because our Scope was downright horrible before this TA.

In hindsight it appears DAL management made a huge error going bonkers with the RJ "explosion" of the last decade. DALPA made a few mistakes also but hopefully we are finally moving in the right direction.

Scoop

Mesabah

I would add that UAL and AMR were the two airlines involved in 9/11, afterwards their traffic numbers did not return the way the other airlines did, which is the number one reason for the difference.

Bucking Bar

Sure it computes. American bought TWA at the apex of a market cycle and closed most of its money losing operation during a worse than normal down turn. American management has turned a deaf ear to their employees and has been unwilling (or unable) to reach the sort of deals Delta management did after its two reorganizations (merger and bankruptcy were both "opportunities" to re re-create the operation).

Delta has outsourced about half of its domestic narrow body network. Since emergence from bankruptcy the Delta MEC has done an excellent job protecting its junior members. Delta management has placed value on labor peace and carried extra staffing to prevent negative opinions of the merger it orchestrated. Delta could have 1,000 furloughs. It made the decision not to.

As a result of the level of outsourcing at Delta, the normal cycle of growth and adjustment itself can somewhat be outsourced. But this is not the good thing it might seem at first blush. It simply means that effectively a new Delta pilot is ten years older with no longevity when he gets welcomed aboard. I would guess the average "new" Delta Captain will be around 50 years old (or more).

Bucking Bar

In hindsight, ALPA should have fought to have the RJ flying done by Delta pilots. Delta's core business is flying passengers; "Connection" is a core business.

MEC Chairman Chuck Giambusso stated that military pilots would not want to fly at Delta if the airline offered E120 or RJ jobs as a starting position. He did not see the regional flying as "Delta" flying. His opinion formed the basis for separating the work and thus, the union and our airline.

In other words, Capt. Giambusso put the career path of military pilots ahead of the air line pilots he represented. It was a strategic error that put a couple thousand of his pilots on the street as Delta replaced the early JT8D powered jets (727 & 737-200).

... and before the senior chorus sings the "management did not want a merger" verse, I am speaking only to ALPA's position. ALPA's responsibility is to speak for pilots that it represents. The truth is that the mainline MECs (all of them) did not see a E-175 or a C Series coming. Among the airplanes that did exist at the time (E120, ATR, Dash 8) only the Pan Am pilots realized scope is first an issue of unity.

sailingfun

That is not correct. All the airlines saw a similiar decline and return of traffic. The public did not hold the 911 accidents against either airline. There are lots of reasons Delta did not furlough as long or deep as some airlines. Part of it may actually have been that they had a superior low cost feed network that allowed them to maintain mainline service. In fact Delta has and had a larger overall average aircraft size in the fleet because of their strong feed. When it looked like we were going to merge with CAL as a example I was stunned to see their overall fleet makeup. It was essentially a small narrow body airline with the average aircraft size being 60 seats smaller then Delta.
The early retirements at Delta had little effect on furloughs. They shifted the timeline of returns up to a year of so. Most of the pilots who took the early outs were in their last 2 years with Delta and would have turned 60 before the age change to 65. There was a slight time shift from the ER's but no long term benefit.
Delta may have maintained more capacity then some thought was smart during the mid 2000's because the entire management stategy at the time seemed to revolve around USAIR going out of business and being positioned to capitalize on that situation when it happened. It never came to pass and much of that management team bit the dust as a result.

sailingfun

I spoke with Chuck about scope on several occasions. I never head him express your sentiment. What was discussed and has always beent he issue is can the flying be done at a cost point by the mainline here you did not simply lose the flying entirely. Its the issue this forum never wants to discuss. To many assume that if we simply had never given a inch on scope and somehow the company would not have been able to force the issue all the feeder jobs would be at the mainline today. That is simply not the case. If you can't compete on a cost basis the flying would not be at the mainline it would be gone along with that feed requiring further reductions in mainline flying.
Bucking Bar makes a great point with Pan AM. Look how well requiring all flying in house worked for them. They died a long slow death never able to build or generate the feed needed to sustain the rest of the airline. Many international flights are only profitable because of the last 10 passengers boarded. Lose those 10 passengers and you lose the route evenutally. If you can't pick those passengers up in very small cities and move them to the hub on a cost effective basis your doomed as Pan Am proved.
There are no easy answers on scope. There is a line where it simply can't be done at the mainline and maintained. Where that line is actually at is the 10,000 dollar question. I think Delta has over reached with the E170/175 that the pre Moak DALPA administration allowed at DCI. I don't however think that the CRJ 50 and 70 seater could be flown and sustained by the mainline. I know Bucking Bar disagrees however the numbers have been costed out over and over again and we never came close. In fact if you could make the numbers work then management would have flown the aircraft at the mainline. They would have had a better product and total control. Harry Algier was in part fired for his insistance that we try and do all jet flying at Delta. I listened to him give a speech on why we should do that that Bucking Bar would have loved. He did however concede that it would require enormous cost reductions from a pilot standpoint to make it work.

Mesabah

That's what it really boils down to. The concessions would have been much larger in bankruptcy to hold onto scope.

Bucking Bar

Sailing,

If Delta can operate DC9's it can operate it's replacement, the E175. We are going to operate the 717. The numbers on the Next Gen CRJ-900 and E-195 are 15% better than the 717. So, obviously mainline can operate that airplane.

Perhaps your question is, "can mainline compete with GoJets?"

On a block hour basis the answer is probably no. Not unless we were willing to lower new hire pay to that of a comparable GoJets crew. This creates a very sticky political situation where junior pilots complain and senior pilots fear transfer of their flying to junior equipment.

Two things need to happen:
(1) ALPA needs to force management to look at costs beyond the block hour. ASA and Comair were a loss of 3.5 Billion Cap Ex, plus the strike, plus the loss on the fleet and capital improvements lavished on the subsidiaries (new HQ buildings, equipment, etc ...) Then there are the passenger handling costs associated with all of the mis connects, bumping, maintenance and staffing issues unique to having 8 different airlines with incompatible crews and maintenance. Triple redundant management structures, parasitic shareholders and litigation all adds up too.
(2) ALPA needs to educate union members on what a union is. Military pilots have not a clue (and have no reason to know) the history of the labor movement in our profession. For the most part, those from the top to the bottom of ALPA do not understand or appreciate "unity" as exclusive control over labor.

... and a third would be good:
(3) If you graph Delta's pay scales vs productivity, the large jet drivers are relatively underpaid compared to their small jet peers. The difference should be better understood so as to alleviate the fear 767 Captains have that somehow a Delta RJ pilot would harm their interests in future negotiations.

gloopy

Exactly. Of course DL can't match the block hour bids of the cut throat bottom feeders on a large RJ. DL can't do that on a 777 either. Anything we allow the goJets of the world to fly will always be flown cheaper per block hour than if DL flew it. Especially if you don't include all the ancillary costs that Bar mentioned, that so far stack very high into the many, many Billions of wasted dollars.

eaglefly

Bucking, while there's no way mainline labor COSTS could match that of Go Jets, one question is to ask is could that be negated by a REVENUE increase to DELTA. To outsource that flying, Delta must relinquish some of the revenue to another operator that would have normally gone to them in order for that operator to make their own profit.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be possible for mainlines to recapture SOME flying like that and break even as opposed to outsourcing.