Enemyofthestate

2015 is the earliest I can go - I'd love to be gone now. I hope you are correct on the latter, although I heard there was a very cursory study done to validate this MEC's preconceived notion (shared by management) that it will never be economically viable to fly at the mainline. Of course with a sea change in the make up of this MEC it might be seriously evaluated.

Timbo

I read it on the Internet!

What more proof do you need??!

(psst...and I hear American might merge with US Air, but don't tell anyone!)

acl65pilot

Nothing if we actually hold the line and do not take some quid to allow the measly few extra thousand pounds in MGW.

Hey camel, I said only your nose.

If we hold the line I am pleased as I could ever be, but if we do not, well, exemptions to anything lead to more exemptions. All in the name of a sound business plan and too much cash to fix it.

Timbo

Nearly 20 years ago (early 1993) I was displaced off my (bottom) MD88 Capt. seat when DAL sold their DC9's and all the more senior DC9 guys came to the 88. Then DAL gave all that DC9 flying to Com Air and ASA to fly with their brand new RJs. I called DALPA to ask What the Fark are they doing, giving OUR flying to CA and ASA to fly with JETS?? I ranted;

"WHY AREN'T WE FLYING THOSE JETS??!"

The answer I got from DALPA was, "You don't want to fly those little jets, Capt. would only pay $50/hr, and that's less than what the L1011 Engineers make! We CAN'T have Captains making LESS than engineers!"

We had just furloughed for the first time in the history of DAL, I said, "You're right, I don't want to fly it (I was displaced back to the 757 F/O seat) but I'll bet all those FURLOUGED guys would LOVE to fly it!"

7 years later (2000) I'm at In Command, with Leo the CEO speaking to our class, one of the guys asked about why we can't fly the RJ's at mainline. Leo's answer was, "We can't afford to have you fly them, even at their current pay rates, because we also pay you 30% override, in benefits..."

This was about a year before 9-11, and well before our 42% pay cuts and loss of pension. In bankruptcy I was sure we could finally wrangle back some of our outsourced flying, since our pay rates were reduced 42%, and that pesky 30% override was basically gone.

But...once again, DALPA's attitude was, "You don't want to fly those little jets." and again, we had guys out on furlough who would have LOVED to have been flying those little jets.

I don't know what DALPA's problem is, maybe it's arrogance, but a jet is a jet, and a job is a job. I see no reason why we shouldn't be flying those jets. If it says DELTA on the side, it should be flown by Delta Pilots...or so I would think.

It's too expensive to have 'mainline pilots' flying RJ's ???

Really??

What about the expense of having 8 different CEO's and management teams, for our 8 different DCC's?? And 8 different scheduling depts. and 8 MX depts. and 8 different training depts, etc.??

I think the only way to 'fix this' is if all 8 of our DCC's get together and file for Single Carrier Status, and get included in our contract and onto our SL.

But, would DALPA support that?

Mesabah

No, DALPA would not support that, it would create a conflict of interest since ALPA would have to sue its regional pilots to make sure Delta pilot's seniority is protected during any type of scope recapture scenario.

sailingfun

A in depth costing study was done. The numbers between the union and company were quite different however they showed even using best case numbers for us that a 70 seat operation could not be run at the mainline. When you start getting near 80 seats it becomes a he said she said discussion. That is how we have arrived at 76 seats. The company offered quite a bit if we would bump the number to 82 seats with a GW increase. It went down to the last hours of negotiations. I suspect now that number on the companies part was to allow Skywest to order the larger MRJ. They will not be able to do that with the current agreement and even Skywest management acknowledges that. The smaller jet complies with the current scope clause.

Timbo

And I'll bet a whole bunch of Delta Pilots wouldn't support it either, unless they could be -guaranteed- no RJ pilots would go in front of them on our SL...

Timbo

Nobody has mentioned this one yet...

FAA proposes $987,500 penalty for Delta - Travel - News - msnbc.com

Bucking Bar

The "in depth" study did not include investment losses, cap ex write offs, crashes, additional managerial expenses or the cost borne by mainline (ie redundant management structure). The study also did not include DIP financing, the cost of litigation (Skywest & Mesa) and the cost of walking business to our competitors.

While I understand methodology which excludes "unexpected" costs, these are real costs of outsourcing none the less.

The political choice we make is to NOT rub management's nose in these "unexpected costs." Instead our political slant is to justify outsourcing.

Delta's outsourcing looks good on paper from a short term perspective. The longer view would reveal it has been a disaster for both labor and Delta, Inc.

Bucking Bar

That's because anything involving Ray LaHood leaves us speechless.

Not to be "political" but he can't be out of the DOT soon enough.