Bucking Bar

Welcome burn

satchip

Everything has been well said. I think we have woken up, but the sleeping giant is hungover!! The word is slowly spreading, with 12 years, if they furlough 2000, I am back where I was 5-6 yrs ago. Just like right now I am getting paid what i made in 8 years ago! Guys hired in this time frame get it, but, IMHO, I don't know if they are bringing it up in conversation enough to get it in the forefront of thought of the more senior group. Just my meager .02 as a long time reader/new poster.
Burn Notice[/quote]

Ahh, you learn Grasshopper! It's not always about pay rates. Captains at the bottom of the list become what if we furlough 500-2000? F/Os in the middle become what if we subcontract more routes and hours?

Slow, you think we are Scope Chickens? We are nothing compared to the food fight going on between CAL EWR and the CAL MEC. It could get that bad here too. I fervently hope it dosen't.

Stagger Lee

Had to jump in here even though I always meant to just check out the site on occasion. It is more then a little disingenuous to rail against 'senior' pilots not being concerned with the scope issue. The term senior is extremely relative, as the guys you are calling senior are in fact mid-level pilots escalated by default, as the truly senior pilots ran away with their retirement payouts. Then the newbies became mid-level pilots and a bunch of guys off the street became the newbies. IE, everyone on the list is in a position they would not otherwise have seen for many years.

The point of the above is that those 'senior' pilots you rail against were here for the first layoffs in 91 and watched as scope took more and more of our flying through the 90's. We were the newbies who had our careers derailed by scope changes voted in by the true senior pilots. We also endured the B-scale, vacation sellback, etc, etc, none of which helped our careers. At the same time we endured the bragging about the final averages of $550,000 and $60,000 for a month's pay. We are fully aware of the damage done to the junior by the senior!

In fact we are still paying the price as deadzoners. Never see much concern with the fact the deadzoners are hosed as far as retirement is concerned. Pension gone, payout taxed as ordinary income, market falls by half, as does paycheck needed to try and build a new retirement in place of the stolen one, with very few years left to go in many cases. Many of us will be working long after we stop flying for DAL because of this hose job. Is it the fault of the junior pilots? No, of course not and neither is the present scope situation the fault of the guys you are calling 'senior.' If you have not heard much from us about it, give us the benefit of the doubt. In most cases guys are in a quiet state of panic doing math and realizing just how *******ed they are financially. But that does not mean we are going to do to you what was done to us. As far as I can tell, guys at my level are just as concerned about scope as you are, even if it isn't topic number 1 24/7. Just try to remember that scope is not the only disaster facing some of us. Many will be bagging groceries long after we stop carrying the stupid hat! For that we can thank DAL and the truly senior guys that went before us.

shiznit

I hope it doesn't EVER get that bad here, but the onus for that is squarely on management's shoulders (and everything we've seen so far doesn't lend to a destruction of employee relations). But I want LEC and MEC leadership who isn't afraid to take that stand when it's time.

I'm not saying that the current leadership can't, I'm just worried that they won't.

Slow,

Food for thought....Do you see how clearly and specifically the LEC 170 reps COMMUNICATE their direction and positions on issues germane to their membership. I wonder if "people" in the DALPA communications dept. would consider using the same specificity? It might help to clear the air and quiet down the inaccurately monikered "scope chickens".

slowplay

I do not speak for the MEC. I speak for me, an anonymous webboard pseudonym. Oh, and I won't be running for anything this fall...

As far as acting on proof if it was brought to me, I do have a lot of contacts in this company and ALPA. I also read the tea leaves and connect the dots....wait, that's ACL! Sorry, I guess I'll just tell him! He's running(maybe) and that's a good thing!

Seriously, we have guys on here that fearfully assert what management says about 100 seaters who can't figure out a way to deliver proof of a scope violation? Right.....

Look at all the hyperbole around this issue posted on this board. I still think that Chicken Little is the appropriate analogy. You disagree. I see three different futures:

1. There are no furloughs. We renegotiate our scope clause in contract 2012 or whenever the opportunity presents itself to size "tighten." It has been done before here at Delta (86 and 96).

2. There are 475 or less furloughs. 26 jets have 6 seats pulled out of them and are flown as 70 seaters. 344 Delta pilots flow back to Compass and Mesaba. Up to 131 Delta pilots could be truly out of work depending on MLOA, PLOA, etc.

3. There are 476 or more furloughs. All 153 jets have 6 seats pulled out and are operated as 70 seaters. Our scope permanently resets to 70 seats with the total number of allowed 70 seat jets unchanged. 344 of the furoughed pilots flow down, and the rest are out of work.

Last time I checked almost all the DCI carriers have pilots on furlough, with more to come. They aren't taking your flying. DCI is shrinking, and fairly rapidly in total airframes and pilot jobs. Last time I checked there isn't a legacy carrier that doesn't have pilots furloughed...except Delta. That doesn't mean it won't happen. It does mean that we're better positioned than anybody else, that we've got effective scope and contract provisions that make it difficult (expensive) for management to furlough. All those provisions were brought to you by the same organization that the chickens are squawking about now.

You call it offensive. Others say I show hubris. I believe that many here are the Fox news version of "fair and balanced" and they're offended when shown a different point of view. To each his own.

slowplay

Are these two statements written by the same person?

After reading the above, look at the post a few down from the deadzoner. See if you might find a little condescension and single issue politics from one group on this board when viewed from a different perspective.

I can do better with the tone. Frustration has bubbled out (again) today. How about some of you guys meeting me halfway?

Burn Notice

Stagger,
I am not railing against "senior" pilots at all. I know those with smaller sen. #'s than I have lost way too much. I was merely drawing on my own experience and other anecdotal information from this thread that sometimes scope is not the front and center issue as it is for those on the lower half of the sen. list. My point was to motivate those who feel scope is #1 to get out and verbalize and get it in the forefront of everybody's mind. From #1 to #12,5something (sorry 12,5something I can't remember your exact number) we have got to take a stand for our scope provisions.
Burn

alfaromeo

I am not sure I can convince anyone of anything here, because your minds are already made up. What I can do is point to facts. First, most of the concessions made in the last 5 years have been pay and and retirement. Those two affect the most senior pilots to a much greater degree than junior pilots. Second, you can add that in the years prior to 2001, the senior pilots pushed a lot of money into the junior end of the list by increasing the first officers percentage of captain pay and eliminating the B-Scale. That is why the junior Northwest pilots got a much bigger raise than their captains.

So the facts are that the bulk of concessions have fallen on more senior pilots and if you look ten years back to today, you will find the junior end of the list fared much better situated than the senior end.

But that is not what you wanted to hear. What you want to talk about is 70-76 seaters. So let's look at the history. In 2004 we relaxed scope in conjunction with the pre bankruptcy agreement. We had two choices, go to bankruptcy or relax scope, it was pretty plain. At the time, many pilots said "go to bankruptcy, it can't be worse than this". Great advice.

So now we are is bankruptcy. Scope is going to change, either through negotiation or through a judge's order. What do you do? Manage the change or have is shoved down your throat. Again, we saw a lot of people say "the judge won't do that." In the case of the NWA flight attendants, the Comair pilots, and everyone else that tested that theory, the judge said "Watch this." More great advice. Just think, if we had our contract rejected and US Air had been able to take over, 1000-1500 of our Troy Kane and senior pilots would be out of work now. That victory was because we retained important scope provisions even in bankruptcy. Scope isn't always about 70 seat aircraft.

So if you want to frame it as senior pilots screwing junior pilots go right ahead, you will do that anyway regardless of what I say here. I guess I would just ask to look at the big picture and don't feel like the lone ranger when considering that life hasn't gone exactly smoothly in the last few years. Any change in scope was made with a gun to our heads. What slowplay is referring to is how this scope issue has become so emotional that it is devoid of facts.

First, look at the history of the last two scope concessions. After 2004, Delta was poorly managed and headed to eventual Chapter 11. Our flying shrunk but we still had recalls due to the early retirements. After 2006, Delta was well managed and we offered recall to all pilots and hired 700 more. Your career has much more to do with the management of the airline rather than these smaller jets. American is pointed out as the king of scope clauses, but no one wants to mention how much their mainline has shrunk in the last 5 years. Shouldn't they have E-175's and E-190's aplenty on their property? Isn't that how it should work out if you have a good scope clause? Last I looked they have 0.

Second, since 2006 we have tightened scope at every chance. The JCBA allowed less 76 seat aircraft total than would have been available from the sum of the two individual airlines. We have signed a series of letters about the joint venture that have tightened the protections for Delta pilots. Oddly, these are painted as concessions, mostly by pilots that haven't taken the time to read them or the old language they replaced.

The one big hullabaloo was about the 76 seat grievance settlement. What people can't or won't realize was that was a very losable arbitration case for us. Hopefully, everyone on the seniority list now knows the uncertainties of arbitration, but apparently they have very short memories because they come back and decry how any settlement is a "cave in". Delta's case would have been that they were in compliance when they signed the contracts to add these aircraft. You can't pick up flying at Walmart on a whim, it has to be planned well in advance. Since they were in compliance when they were ordered, they should be allowed to fly them.

You may not like that explanation, but that is probably what their case was. Go ask a lawyer friend if that would have some weight in an arbitration. So, as part of risk management, we settled the case. We won our interpretation of the language permanently, so we don't have to fight that battle again. Management already had the right to add the aircraft as 70 seat aircraft, so they won the right to put 6 more seats in 25 or so aircraft (I forget the number). We won the ability to have those seats removed if there was one furlough. Could we have possibly done better in arbitration? Yes. Could we have been slapped around and gotten nothing? Yes. Risk management.

The rest of the scope kerfluffle lately has been just silly. Republic flies E-190's for another carrier and it is a Delta scope concession. Republic buys Frontier and it is a Delta scope concession. Some guy knows a guy who knows a guy whose cousin says that Skywest wants to fly more 76 seat aircraft and that's a scope concession. It is difficult to even to have a discussion about this because all rational thought has been pushed aside on this issue. Every time someone sneezes, it is another Delta scope concession, even when the story is completely made up.

All I would ask is that you talk to your reps, go to union meetings, try to listen to what people are saying without so much emotion and you will find this. No one wants to relax scope. Everyone knows it is a big issue. Management has conceded that there is no fight left over 100 seat aircraft, they are resigned to that being a mainline aircraft.

As for the rest, I don't know what to say. People are afraid of change, and we have had a lot of that in the last 5 years. Emotions are high and there is no way to comabat that short of people growing up a little. The level of argument has really gotten to be a little childish.

Bucking Bar

Slow and Alpha - good posts. Concerns addressed with facts.

Dude lifts a White Russian in your general direction.

Check Essential

Maybe, but the bigger jets are taking more passengers more miles.
That's what counts.
There are fewer 50 seaters, true. But there are MORE 70-76 seaters.
The numbers don't lie. Here's the latest:


Delta Air Lines
Monthly Traffic Results (a)

June 2009 ... June 2008 ... Change
RPMs (000):
Domestic 10,802,271 ... 11,340,328 ... (4.7%)
Mainline 8,450,161 ... 9,105,995 ... (7.2%)
Regional 2,352,110 ... 2,234,333 ... 5.3%


ASMs (000):
Domestic 12,396,242 ... 13,127,967 ... (5.6%)
Mainline 9,536,638 ... 10,386,973 ... (8.2%)
Regional 2,859,604 ... 2,740,995 ... 4.3%


Delta Air Lines
Year to Date Traffic Results (a)

ASMs (000):
June 2009... June 2008 ... Change

Domestic 69,683,635 ... 75,588,773 ... (7.8%)
Mainline 53,451,528 ... 59,564,186 ... (10.3%)
Regional 16,232,107 ... 16,024,587 ... 1.3%



Big picture:
Mainline down 7%-8%
Regional up 3%-4%