Good post.
But I find myself asking why we are always faced with giving up jobs.
Is there a fundamental long term problem here that "scope" can't solve?

Is it no longer profitable for Delta Air Lines to fly passengers in airplanes?
Is outsourcing all of our flying really management's ultimate goal?

Regarding the economic truck, I would alter the scenario somewhat.
The truck is about to drive off with a bag of money. Management wants us to jump out in front of it along with them to try and stop it. But then they get to keep all the money.

 

HND runway configuration is not really set up for max number of moverments, the 2 short runways are 8200 and the longer ones are 9800. This is about the economy, and government trying to squeeze out foreign competitors.

 

Yes- Delta management would like to at least enjoy the ability to outsource ALL off our jobs.

Scope is our legal right to Delta flying. It is always an issue because it is the foundation of our bargaining leverage. Scope is the first section of our contract because without scope, none of the rest of the contract can be enforced.

(I know you know that ... just giving a sermon to the readers who might be new)

 

Que music from "Devil went down to Georgia"

Fire in the Gate House Run boys Run

 

If it means increasing the stock price, you better believe that's the ultimate goal.

 

Last I checked, 12 to 15 gates was more than a handful, but what do I know.

 

In NYC that's like 3 billion dollar's worth of gates at present rates.

Of course you only get that deep discount if you destroy a similar number of gates.




Wait.

What?

 

I disagree with several points. Ever head of the Scheduling Optimization Team? It was a bunch of no to low-cost items that the pilots had been asking for, but because the company didn't "have" to do it contractually, they just simmered for a long time. Cue the SOT awhile back. We got lots of improvements, such as PS for front-end deviation from DH, bidding for recurrent (no more senior guys getting crappy A period sims unless they want them), vacation slide (a great provision we got from NWA and made even better than they ever had it), etc.

Again, the company didn't have to agree to any of this, and yet out of "goodwill" they did, and all of us have benefited. You don't get that with a "screw you, no screw YOU" relationship.

Are these game-changers? No. But they are still beneficial and appreciated. As for the non-disclosure statements, that has nothing to do with being one of the "in" crowd. Every group of union negotiators, no matter how bad relationships might be between labor and management, sign these things. Otherwise the company won't even start to talk to you, and why should they. If they are trying to plead an economic case, they need to show you numbers (perhaps fictitious, perhaps not) that they don't want others to necessarily see.

I do agree that it is very easy to slip into a comfortable almost too-friendly relationship, and that can lead to bad results for the pilots that you represent. A "constructive" relationship need not be so soft that we can't walk away from a sh!t sandwich. I just want to see ONE example of the "we're gonna take these guys to the cleaners!" approach that has ever worked, other than in message board la la land.

As for the recent communication re: NRT: I was underwhelmed. Essentially I read "management is not going to make their contractually mandated NRT number, so we will let them include HND in those numbers to be legal. In exchange, we will talk more at some future date."

That said, the world changes. This ain't your father's (or NWA father's) NRT operation. If we blindly cling to old ways, we go the way of the dodo. That doesn't mean we give mgmt a blank check to do whatever they want. I for one am glad we are hearing about this issue now, and at least we can keep our reps accountable as we "engage" the company for future changes--and they pony up $$ to us to allow them.

 

Problem is, the things ALPA gives up are far from "no to low-cost."

 

Umm...the strike?