I 2nd that!

A friend thought up the perfect term for DALPA's scope concept.

Holy jeepers ACL!!

If you can fly like you type, I wan't you flying my commuter leg home. :)

Well, I needed to make a point.

Also, "we love to fly and it shows!"

RE: NW did not have serious scope protection in a merger...NW did have the language, but it was ****** canned in the bankruptcy...to set us up for a sale. Do you really think that DALPA prevented the merger with USAir, or that management allowed you to assist in a merger they in fact did not want.

ACL,

I can't quote your reply because the post will become longer than War and Peace. I think it is odd that you say CO is losing 737's because of market conditions and DL lost 737's and 727's because of scope. It's like everything that shrinks AMR and CO are due to other issues but Delta is the only airline where job losses are caused by scope.

I don't know if you are reading what I write or are deliberately altering what I said. I said specifically that loose scope does not cause mainline growth. It is independent.

To sum up your position (or what I think your position is):

1. If we recapture 70/76 jet flying it will not affect flying for current mainline jobs - I agree (remember, just pilots changing their ID badges)
2. Mainline growth or contraction primarily rests on the business plans of management, not on scope restrictions - I agree
3. Recapturing 70/76 seat flying is good for Delta pilots - I agree

It seems the only point we disagree on is how to recapture the flying. I believe that management has to want this to happen and our job is to convince/annoy/facilitate them into wanting it. You believe it can be done in contract negotiations. You must agree that there will be tremendous costs associated with doing this in any reasonably short time frame (< 10 years). Now, the question is, who will eat those costs? I say get management to eat them.

The answer to your question is yes, DALPA prevented the merger. The decision was made in the committee of unsecured creditors and we had a vote on the committee. The vote was extremely close. Everyone that was at that meeting agrees that our scope language was the deciding factor for that vote.

Your point about bankruptcy is well taken. One of the reasons we wanted to avoid a contract rejection was just so these important scope protections were retained. Compromises were made in some areas to protect others. As I said before, this scope language saved far more junior pilots' jobs than anything written about RJ's. I know people want to ignore this fact but it is true.

All incredibly fascinating gents.

But when are the AE results gonna be posted?

They came out the next day back in Jan and that AE had MUCH more action then this one.

But since I just brought it up and jinxed it we'll probably have to wait a week. :D

Alfaromeo, would you please restate this? As written, it makes absolutely no sense to me. What are you trying to say?

Thanks, TC