RonRicco

[
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.

I don't really remember the rally cry against SCOPE relaxation during loa 46. Most were more shell shocked with the pay cut and the plundering of the work rules to pre pos96 levels than allowing more 70 seaters.


At the time, many pilots said "go to bankruptcy, it can't be worse than this". Great advice.

Again (coming from a so called SCOPE Hawk) most of us that felt like "BK could not be that much worse" were relating it to the amount the pilots we being asked to sacrifice compared to the rest of the employees and the SERP crowd. And, that we were in such bad shape that BK might be a better long term solution for the company. Of course to that we were told that we had to "avoid it at all cost because no airlines ever succeed." So maybe that would have been a "great strategy" as we could have "done it once and done it right." I love the way how the the pilots that disagrees with the "strategy" are marginalized.

So now we are is bankruptcy. Scope is going to change, either through negotiation or through a judge's order.

Last time I checked, we were not in front of a judge but an arbitration panel. And to think.. The arbitrators were (and creditors) were willing to risk a possible end to Delta Air Lines over 16 (at the time) 76 seaters.. If it was that easy I wonder why they didn't hold the line and get the 78 seaters that they wanted to begin with? I mean gosh, the judge, I mean arbitrators were going to give them what they wanted right?



That victory was because we retained important scope provisions even in bankruptcy. Scope isn't always about 70 seat aircraft.

Assuming that the arbitrators and the company were willing to try and get this airline out of BK with a rejected contract and 7k pilots who were not in a great mood.. and that they would not have left that portion of the contract intact since it would help them prevent a hostile takeover.. But you are right, it all isn't about 70 seats.


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

.And I wouldn't expect them to until 2 things happen, One American's current contract is amended and it continues to limit SCOPE and American see the rest of the majors holding the line too. See, Delta is held up as the poster child for RJ's by AMR management as to why they "have to have them to be competitive", until they know we are done outsourcing at ever turn, they will not give in. That is why we need a strategy amongst all the major pilot groups to limit outsourcing....

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.[/quote]

Would love to Discuss the rest Mr. H, but have to go fly now...

Silver2Gold

Is there something wrong with the quote function on this board?? It seems to be getting messed up a lot lately............


I agree with Bar that there has been some well written posts here recently. Thanks to Slowplay, Alpharomeo, and the "long-time listener, first-time caller" StaggerLee for raising the literary bar and leaving the emotional diatribes to Jerry Springer. Well done.

Scoop

Slow and Stagger,

You guys bring up good points, but I would like to reiterate the point that I don't expect Scope to be the "issue" with the MEC - I would; however, expect it to be an issue.

My beef stems from the fact that DALPA just released a 31 page magazine and all throughout the magazine issues that affect the pilot group were brought up and discussed. But the word scope is not mentioned even once.

Why not?

I repeat my question - Has ALPA National forbid DALPA and other MEC's from discussing this topic? Is Scope as a topic off limits? Now that Regionals are a large percentage of ALPA can we no longer discuss this? Even as part of an academic analysis of our careers?

I greatly respect the senior Delta pilots for many reasons, and am grateful for a lot of things, including medical benefits during the furlough. What is done is done regarding the past erosion of Scope, but lets hold fast at the current limits and try to tighten up all aspects of Scope - including the new threats on the horizon, wet leasing of widebody international flying to shell airlines ala UAL. Perhaps the era of regional expansion is dead, perhaps DALPA will hold the line from here on out.

It sure would be nice to hear our DALPA leaders even acknowledge the issue.

Scoop

slowplay

That's what counts, huh?

So I guess if Delta were to get a fleet of 100 747-400 and fly them all on 15 hour legs, then you'd be happy with the 3000 pilot furloughs as they park the 9,88, 320?

That's all that counts, bigger jets flying longer legs, right? ASM's are equal to pilot pay?

Call the furloughed pilots from CMR, ASA, MAH, etc. The reduction from 800 to 700 planes affected pilot jobs. They'll be at 600 in the next year and a half if the rumor mill is correct. And the furlough numbers are climbing. ASM's didn't equate to jobs, nor total pilot pay.

To me what counts is the number of jobs and the quality of those jobs. Your mileage may vary.

slowplay

No. It's a simple answer!

tantrum

So you agree that the number of jobs does count...would DALPA be opposed to flying the 76 seat aircraft at DAL? Would DALPA even try to bring those aircraft over here to increase the number of DAL jobs? Or have we just given up that fight and decided to move on to other battles? Not throwing stones, just trying to find out where we stand.

slowplay

What do you think? Are you a Delta pilot that's a member of ALPA?

I answered your question from my point of view in a previous post. One of the scenarios I describe is tightening scope size in contract 2012. Another is the automatic tightening of scope size due to furloughs. My opinion is just one of 11,000 plus eligible to vote.

Free Bird

So in the last 10 years are there more or less Delta pilots?

In the last 10 years are there more or less NWA pilots?

Combined the 2 and lets look back 5 years? 10 years?

I'm willing to bet there are less mainline jobs now and more RJ jobs. If Im wrong pls show me the numbers.

What percentage of Delta flying was done by DCI 10 years ago? What percentage is done by DCI right now?

See, it's the trend here that is very disturbing. It would be nice to here DALPA say that the party is over and they will not concede 1 more seat of scope to the company. But getting this MEC to say anything anti-mngt is not very likely imo. It's almost as if the MEC really believes the mngt. message of "if we have more RJ's we can make more $$$ which is good for the pilots".

If this administration doesn't understand outsourcing then we have a big problem.

capncrunch

The only way ALPA will care is when the relaxation of said scope would go to another union. Since it does not, they don't. It's time for an in house union that has only one interest, DELTA pilots.

chris1987

Where did the number 2000 come from? Company? union?