Bingo. We don't have protections in JFK, AMS, CDG, or ATL - if the markets determine any city pair or hub is unprofitable it will be paired back, PWA protections or not. We just gave them (?) a 15% margin, potentially out of our pilot ranks to subsidize a market. Guess what? If it's not profitable they'll still cut it and then we'll have to contemplate another retreat.

 

I don't think that's right. What Delta wants is to reduce the presence of the Delta pilot in NRT. If it was as simple as Haneda being the new business plan, then Delta would have no desire to keep code share in NRT. Why would they need NRT code share if NRT is dying?

I think all the dots are connecting Delta wanting to simply replace Delta pilots in NRT with Skymark pilots in NRT. If not, Delta would simply reduce its presence in NRT below the 316 slots per week based on the economics. Delta would then gladly walk away from code share out of NRT because NRT is dying. But that's not what management is asking for. Management wants relief from having to cancel the code share...NOT relief from 316 slots per week.

This is the essence of the situation. It's an opportunity for us to actually roll back outsourcing by ending NRT code share. Yes it's a small step in our overall gigantic outsourcing problem within our Section 1, but it is a step.

Again, you've nailed it. Our union is about to sign off on an LOA (without even a discussion of MEMRAT) that will "give us" an 85% block hour "guarantee" in return for giving the company unlimited code share. Our current language is very tough on the company growing code share because it requires the maintaining of 316 slots per week at a heavily slot-controlled airport. We are now giving up that language.

Agreed.

Right again.

We're not extracting 85% of the flying with this new LOA. We only say we are. Just like when the company came to us wanting to code share out of NRT. Our negotiators were forward thinking and untrusting of management. Exactly as it should be. So our negotiators put in language that gave them the right to code share only IF the company maintains 316 slots per week at NRT. If it's only 315, the code share stops. In essence it was a snap-back feature. Now we're about to negotiate away the 316 number rendering toothless our protections. If 85% is too much for the company to operate, no prob. Just renegotiate it to 80%...but this time you really mean it!!

Very good post with lots of great questions.

Carl

 

Couldn't of said it better new.

It seems that everything the union passes extends our stagnation even longer. To have completed 12 years of service (some while on furlough) and mathematically be looking at almost 20 years of service til upgrade, it will be frustrating if DALPA signs something that wipes out a years worth of retirements.

Up the Irons!!!

 

That is exactly what they're saying. The company is saying that it is based on economics and keeping faith with their vision of capacity discipline. Great. They're management, we're pilots. They get to make those decisions. Pull 15% out of NRT, and end the NRT code share. Win-win. We begin to chip away at our massive outsourcing problem in Section 1, and the company gets to discipline its capacity.

But what does our union do? The best of all worlds for management - allow them to keep NRT code share while reducing NRT capacity (flown by Delta pilots). But it's the worst of all worlds for the Delta pilot.

Carl

 

Yup. Looks like the Comair guys will get their dream of being senior to Delta pilots after all.




Carl

 

First, I thought out of respect for the wishes of this thread we would take the DPA bashing to the other thread.

Second, it's not a matter of us saying no or not. The company is saying 15% needs to be pulled out of NRT (and supposedly placed in HND). The company says they need to do it. Why would you then also allow them to continue with code sharing?

Not that you could get any worse at people skills, but when you keep parroting that tired old ALPA talking point of calling anyone "emotional" if they disagree with you, it just shows you can't debate.

Absolutely we would back DALPA's decision on it because management says they need to do it anyway. Why give them the added gift of keeping code share?

You and I get to think like the "investor class" because we had some good years in which to save money to invest. Lots of younger people here won't have the chance we had if we keep selling their future with scope degradation. Pretty selfish thinking on your part tsquare.

Carl

 

That's another big point here. This LOA will represent one of the most meaninful changes to our Scope in some time. There's absolutely no time constraint associated with it. Nobody has talked about anything being time critical here. Why wouldn't DALPA put this out for MEMRAT? It would show line pilots that they have a voice in something more than electing reps, and it would give DALPA valuable line pilot input. Everything to gain and nothing to lose. But DALPA will not do that. Why?

Carl

 

I guess you are using the "with all due respect" argument. You say no insult intended and then rail about how I have been bought off by the company. With all due respect.

The fact is that any military unit spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Any sports team spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Are they cowards and turncoats also? This argument is seriously one of the dumbest I have read anytime.

There are two signatures on any new LOA, ours and the company's. If you don't consider what the company is thinking then you will fail every time. It sounds sexy to say "Give me, give me, I demand this and that." and then when you fail at least you can pat your own back and crow for the crowd. If you actually want to accomplish something, you have to consider their point of view.

In the company's point of view, they see 15 pax a day. This provision in the PWA has been there for years and it's 15 not 1500, that is reality. So when they are considering giving away something, their return on investment is viewed as 15 pax a day. That is how they view it and no amount of personal attacks on your part is going to change it. If you want their signature on a document then you have to consider what they want.

Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.

Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.

All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.

So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.

In the end, you have to weigh the cost/benefits of each path. In this LOA I see the advantage to a deal is gaining a backstop block hour protection in the Pacific. The disadvantage is letting Delta continue to code share with 15 pax a day out of NRT. Which of those is more important to you?

The company sees the advantage in gaining the revenue from 15 pax a day out of NRT. They see the disadvantage in ceding control over capacity in the Pacific. Which of those is more important them? Next, at what point will they tip over and choose the path of no deal? They have that option and if you assume they don't then you are just lying to yourself. So in determining the tipping point, should you listen to your negotiators, who have lived this agreement for months or just an Internet blowhard that makes up whatever scenario suits them best? Don't forget that there are professional negotiators with decades of experience also in the room.

To me, the option of blustery and bloviation is complete surrender. It might make the bloviator look good to the forum crowd, but you have doomed your pilots to status quo. If you don't believe me, then look at USAPA. The last contract change at US Airways was in 2004. Look at their contract. But hey, they talk a good game. Maybe for you fighting words and reps making themselves look good give you all the compensation you need. I prefer cash myself. Who is delivering the cash and who is delivering the bull crap by the boat load?

 

Well, you just validated Roadkills' point

 

You just can't stop being a d!ck can you alfa...

Almost right...you mean you have no points.

See there? Being a d!ck might be easy, but it adds nothing does it.

That is an incorrect characterization designed to get the required response of Delta pilots caving in. If Delta says they need a change to the status quo, then change it. If they can't operate 316 slots per week profitably, then cut it back to what you can operate. It is in NO WAY connected to code share capability beyond NRT. Management is hoping we'll connect what is not connected, but the two have nothing to do with each other operationally. They're only connected because our current Scope connects them. It was prescient and forward thinking language that foresaw this very scenario. Now DALPA is about to give it away for nothing...and without MEMRAT.

Pure factless personal opinion on your part.

You're the one flat wrong alfa. 85% is not an improvement. That's just pure political spin. If 85% is not enough and management needs to pull it down to 70%, there's no way DALPA would not give in to that demand. You and all the other DALPA loyalists will be right back here telling us: "we can't force management to operate empty airplanes because of some ancient agreement...we need to start thinking like investors!"

Nobody's asking them to lock in 100%. Only you are saying that. We're just saying hold firm to what's in our contract. For once, just pay attention to what's in our contract.

The obvious corollary to your statement then is: Why would managment give up ANY of its control over how many flights it operates out of NRT for a mere 15 pax per day of code share? No managment would do that. It should tell you something as to the much larger issue behind this.

We have no backstop protections now, and we'll have none after this LOA is signed. The percentages will just be renegotiated as desired by managment with a union hungry for constructive engagement. What will stay, is unlimited code share.

You've read your ALPA talking points well grasshopper!

Carl