Here's a question. Leading up to Moaks collaboration with management to remove Compass pilots from under DALPA....why not go to management with "an opportunity for both of us to get a contract done early"...we will take something less than 'restoration pay' if we can wrap the compass operation/airplanes into Delta mainline (pending an agreement with the Compass pilots to come in on the bottom of the seniority list)?

That's the kind of real, tangible scope recapture we should be trying to execute....not breathing 20 years of new life into outsourcing larger RJ's. Why does it always have to be DALPA reacting and selling opportunities that seem to mainly benefit management....then penning agreements that are either full of holes, have overly long lookback periods/time to come into compliance then forgetting to put stiff penalties in for non compliance at all?

:eek:

It seems to me this would be easier with a regional that Delta owns.

In my mind this was also the same time that DALPA failed to potentially help the furlouhees either through omission or timidity. Around 1999-2000 DALPA tried a no greenslip campaign and got slammed by a judge because it was a change to the "status-quo" of how we were operating. 49 individual Delta Pilots were personally named in a lawsuit.

Around 2004 Green-slips were changed to go from 200% to 150% with a few other changes that made them much less lucrative. In other words there was now no "status-quo." DALPA had an opportunity to reengage on the no greenslip campaign, this time with about 1000 Delta Pilots on Furlough.

DALPA never even tried and greenslips were going out like crazy with DAL Pilots on furlough. Major DALPA failure. No one could ever me a good reason for this. Maybe the DALPA guys were gun-shy after being sued. DALPA did some really good things at the time, medical for furloughees for example, but I always wondered why Greenslips were going out like gangbusters with furloughed Pilots.

Never made sense to me - A union supporting overtime work with furloughed Pilots on the street. :confused:

Scoop

Isn't 2004 the year that DALPA won the FMII arbitration (grievance) and start bringing guys back?

Second question, the No GS thing was a court order and Delta was trying to get out of C2K prior to it's amendable date. Do you think there was leverage to do a no GS campaign and have the court order removed and not start affecting C2K for the pilots still at work?

Back in the 90s DALPA allowed up to 20 BAE-146s at ASA. ASA ended up with 5-6, all 88 seats except for one that had 100 seats!

Hoser

jethikoki,

I hope my tone is not offending you. I wish you the best at whatever your goal is. I know with a little diligence and hard work, "the world is your oyster"!!

Offending DAL pilots? I think a guaranteed interview (once a DCI pilot has met the minimums plus a certain amount of time at DCI) from DCI to Delta is appropriate.

My honest and true wish is that any airplanes with "Delta" painted on it, be flown by Delta pilots. Period.

Have a good day,

TEN

I hope you are right. 20 years ago we were mostly talking turbo-props. The BAE was a money losing proposition with its four engines and operating costs (ALbeit a few Regionals had a handful).

Today, DAL will be seeing more of the 76 seat RJ which can hold up to 90 seats in a bankruptcy or money saving lay-out. DALPA "sells" this as a 50 seat replacement which is a beautiful and optimistic thing. My defensive side views this fuselage as the 90 seater that replaces the leased 717s in the next downturn.

Optimism is a great , it bring out motivation, teamwork and euphoria but in the airline industry you need to be a little more defensive and cautious. Our Chairman never mentioned restoration in his well written but condescending letter. He knows better, Once you start giving away your livelihood, it becomes next to impossible to get it back.

Good Luck Brothers,

TEN

FWIW, 76 seats is an optimal compromise for the performance characteristics of the aircraft. Much more and it starts running into limitations.

Just as Delta does not operate our mainline jets maxed against certified capacities either.

That wasn't the reason.

Management wanted out of a bunch of 50 seat CRJ. They were under contract to DCI carriers for flying and had ownership costs and network commitments that needed to be addressed. Adding the B717 was one component of the network, but they had to find a way to get out of 50 seat contracts and ownership costs. The additional 40 76 seat jets that they've ordered were used to "buy out" the contracts that they otherwise would have been unable to get out of.

Because of management's need we got a fleet size and block hour collar put around DCI, among a whole bunch of other things.

It is puzzling to me why folks misrepresent what the deal actually was and why it was available at that time.

What's puzzling is why you and ALPA "misrepresented what the deal actually was and why it was available at that time" before, during, and after the high-pressure sales pitch on C2012.