Thanks and that is just the basics.

:D that line needs to be on a t shirt! ROTFLMAO

I even laughed as I wrote it. Another one of these random one liners that I love to come up with.

Well, bids are final. Any guesses?

What are we guessing? How senior NYC -88 B goes? :)


Actually I WILL be curious to see who takes the captain slots.

I bid NYC M88A as my 14th choice!

If I recall correctly the last results came out fairly quickly for being such a large displacement...bet we'll know sooner than later!

They came out the next day back in Jan.

Sorry, but you are making my point for me. Job gains at mainline are mostly the result of independent business decisions made by management. The number of 70/76 seaters allowed in the contract is not the determinate factor. I ask you to tie scope clauses to mainline job gains and you talk about bankruptcy and revenue management. I don't think I am the one that doesn't get it.

So while you make a funny joke, what you don't understand is that the mainline flying is an independent variable from the scope clause. The number of 70/76 aircraft don't determine the number of MD-80's or 737's flying, it is the business model that management adopts. Or at least that's what you just said above. I never claim that loose scope equates to job gains, I just claimed you cannot prove that tight scope equates to job security at mainline. The two airlines you mention (CO and AA) both have pilots on involuntary furlough, CO is continuing to furlough and AA would except they are losing jobs by retirement attrition. By the way, CO has absolutely no scope protection for aircraft on pro-rate agreements, just fee for departure agreements. We could code share with a Whale from EWR to ALB on a pro rate agreement and the CO pilots wouldn't have a say in it. We would.

You also never have looked at the scope protections we have for mergers and takeovers, it is the best in the industry. That scope language has actually proven to save mainline jobs in its application during the Airways hostile takeover. If we didn't have that language, you would not be working at Delta. Our scope language would have been a serious obstacle to the DL/NW merger, NW did not have that protection. That is what gave us leverage with management in this deal. I know you like to count up 76 seaters but that is not all scope is.

As I have said many times, I believe that management should recapture that flying (70/76 seats) at mainline, or at a dedicated subsidiary with flow through (like Compass) for brand management. This will not change the number of current mainline-type jobs (DC-9 and above), just the ID badge these pilots wear to work (maybe they would have to wear their hats too). I don't think you can force this change through the industrial side.

What is really funny, is that shortly after you claim we "sold out scope", you were hired onto mainline. Doesn't that make my point? Independent variables.

How much has the mainline carriers grown since scope was loosened and how much have the regionals?

I agree. I am all for Management determining what airplanes serve what city pairs. That is a management function. What I disagree with is that you feel that these jets should be flown by pilots that are not on our list.
What tighter scope equates to is that if management want a 70/76 seat jet to serve ATL-SAT instead of a M-88 that either way a DAL pilot is flying that jet, not a third party affiliate.

Also, CALALPA's scope seems to work for them. I do not see 76 seat jets flying around. If you equate their furloughs to anything other than what they equate it to,please explain it to me. Yes, they parked some 733's and 735's but the company has been shrinking to match market demand. There is not a plea to outsource that flying. It is a business decision, based upon economic factors. I also see there movements as a alignment to a future business deal. It has nothing to do with scope.
Our job loss here and the fact that DAL ordered 637 RJ's from Canadair and then as they took delivery of these jets they replaced the 732, and 727 with these jets most certainly means that jobs were lost due to scope. We/You could have just as easily put these jets on the mainline list and the DCI carriers would not have tripled in size.
Now, I will give you a few things. 1) The C2K rates were no where near in line with what is a break even on the DCI lift, 2) You needed to focus on the FAE to make sure that the retirement was worth getting, and 3) There was really no way of knowing that DCI could or would grow to the levels it was at in 2007. I give you that, and I am not for looking in the rear view mirror and pointing fingers. Facts and circumstances are different today than they were a few years ago.
So lets look forward.

Contrary to what you think. I know what scope is. We have done an admirable job of creating JV scope. I like the fact that it is inclusive. That is the way that small jet scope needs to be too. Did we learn our lesson? Maybe. Should we have our small jet scope mirror our JV scope? Heck yes!

I understand with decent clarity what section one is. I also know that we have not seen our top end outsourced because of the protections that are there for that sort of thing. They are not there for the bottom end.

I know that DAL management needed something from us to make the merger work with anyone. I know we got a return for it. I also saw it as one opportunity to change the way we have small jet scope in the PWA. We did not. Inclusive is the way to go. The insurance industry did that after Andrew to limit themselves. We need to take note of that. In effect DAL pilots do a min percentage of the flying. Previously we have limited DCI to a percentage. It was 28%, 32%, 37%, 42% and on and on until it was to ugly to look at. Do it the other way. We fly 60% 70% etc of the DAL coded flying. It works and will work for us. That is job security.

That is part of the problem. Mainline types? What defines that? I see the E series as a mainline jet that we have allowed DCI to fly. It now is flying on routes that no connection carrier should fly.

Oh no scope was sold out way before that. I was stuck at ASA for six years longer than was originally planned as mainline shrunk and DCI exploded. All we did with allowing up to 255 76 seat jets, is give the company a way to replace the DC-9 and many of the 88's without a 100 seat replacement. Fact is that management has decided to in-source our flying for many of the reasons you have stated above. That does not mean that the next team will see it the same way, and there will be a next team.

The initial arguement was cost at AMR putting bodies on the street. I answered you as to why it was not scope. They have a static cost issue. It does not deal with scope.
Sure if they sat there and gave AMR the farm they would in a few short years have to have a concessionary contract because they would have lost too much of their barging strength to demand what they have today. That is a loss for the profession.

What you argue above is that scope is not just small jets. I was not hired because of scope one way or another. I was hired because of the reasons I gave in my previous retort. I was hired because DAL was operating at bare bones though 1113c and they decided to expand their international footprint with better utilization of an existing fleet. Where was the majority of the growth in the last two years prior to the meltdown? It was in the international arena, hence many new hires getting international gigs. Scope did not play a part in that. (Small jet scope to be precise)

Now that the economy has tanked we are fat on pilots, not because of scope. The reason we are fat is one more thing I give credit to the MEC for. Layered penalties for furloughs. Money talks. I was impressed with this.

My sole bone of contention is the total lack of regard to the low gauge flying that we do. The statement that DCI is good for us is true, to a point. It is like everything. Too much is a bad thing. Well, we are at too much. The company knows that they got drunk on RJ's and the hangover is killing them. Hence the retreat from 10+ flights a day in to 1.5 million person markets on RJ's and now 6 flights a day on five 88's and one 76 seat jet. That is rational business. They are no longer adding RJ's to protect themselves against the labor. (Part of the reason they flew three carriers in to the same city pair after the OH strike of 2001)

Point is that our scope is not the reason for this. On that point I agree. On the most basic level the job of the union is to protect its members. We have lost membership since 2001. We now stand at about 12200 pilots, and if you would have combined our groups in 2001 we would have equaled about what DAL and all of its DCI dedicated pilots equal today; 18500 members. That is power.
Stopping the scope slide at a min, and recapturing the 70/76 seat market as a goal is very important. We need to make sure these jets are on the mainline. We has union members should want those jets here. Added jobs equal better security for its members. I agree that DAL needs to reign in its quality and the only way to do that is to make the mainline operate it.
The 70/76 seat flying has economics that support mainline pilots performing the work. It should be our duty to get that small jet flying scope made inclusive and get these departures back.
For you, I support my MEC on many things, this is just one point I would like them to take a positive stance on, instead of the wall of silence. Lee has done an amazing job navigating this merger. I give him and the MEC members as well as the committee members an A+ for the thankless work done.
Also, I am far from a single issue guy. I see scope as important, and the reason it is section 1 in the contract. It needs to come first to make the rest of the contract valid. What point is a PWA if the flying can be outsourced to the lowest bidder?