I was impressed with most of what Lee said yesterday- I like the proactiveness of the JV stuff.

However...his small jet scope stance is terrible. And like you, I couldn't believe that he admitted to already giving up on Compass. Freaking rediculous. I'm still fuming about what he said during that section of the briefing.

It looks like that is exactly what happened in three categories. MSP330a, DTW330b, and MEM320b only had VDs. DTW744b and MSP330b only had one MD each with all the rest VDs.

Never mind .....

Bucking Bar, Every pilot I know after listening to the actual facts on the RJ grievance in the end feels it was handled well. I have listened to several hard core guys say how scope was sold out. Then the reasons behind the agreement were explained and they all said. Well I guess I would have done the same thing. You are aware that had we won the grievance in a slam dunk that at the time it was projected the company would have access to the additional airframes in less then a year anyway. Your aware that had we won it was still unlikely the arbitrator would have ordered the removal of the seats. Are you aware that with the agreement reached we get to use our interpretation of the disputed clause in all future RJ resets which is big long term. We also got a small amount of increase furlough protection. Given that we had almost no upside in winning the grievance and a huge downside in losing you believe DALPA miss handled it?

If your elected representatives didn't give you a response, then there's a problem.

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 684445)

  There is no dialogue and no communication, only us being told "how it is going to be"

  ---

I disagree. There has been plenty of dialogue. There was an extensive presentation at the previous 44 meeting on scope, and a lengthy discussion on the issue. Every meeting that Moak has been to has discussed (Q&A at a minimum) scope. You disagree with the conclusion that has been drawn. Fine, that's a part of the process. But it doesn't mean there hasn't been extensive dialogue and communication.

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 684445)

  If stapling Compass at current book (no cost to Delta) is such a bad idea, why is it a bad idea?

  ---

This has been explained a whole bunch of times. Putting flying that you don't own (scope) on your seniority list makes Delta pilots hostages. Bad idea. There is no leverage to get Compass on to our list while reducing an equivalent number of permitted 76 seaters.

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 684445)

  Management says they were open to a Compass staple (as a mechanism to facilitate a flow - give them a number) ALPA categorically denies this. I've been trying to find the right two people in the same room to press the issue and figure out if this did, or did not, happen

  ---

I'd like to see two people that were in the room, or even one from the management side.;)

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 684445)

  Delta has "looked at" the E190 / E195 and is "looking for" a 115 to 130 seat jet. If this eventually turns into a E-Jet order, I do not want to compete with DCI for the type in 2012. A better plan would be to capture Compass for current book (which solves the Representational issue) and take every opportunity to capitalize on management's displeasure with Republic's aggressive moves in the marketplace.

  ---

Hauenstein has categorically denied looking at Embraers. At the company management presentation Tuesday Anderson said there weren't going to be any additional aircraft orders, that they were going to spend money getting our fleet to a standardized and better customer experience. The only aircraft they are actively shopping for is MD-90's, or any incremental type they can get for a steal. They've already changed 787's to options vice orders, so I bet those deposits have been refunded.

It's proactive, just like Pickett's charge was proactive in my view. I am heartened that you're still willing and eager to support other alternatives. There will be future opportunities to strengthen scope, and I'm sure your elected representatives will direct tightening where we can.

Sailing - I've explained it the same way you have. How I'd have handled it is purely speculative. While not a "win" , the resolution was a reasonable compromise.

Again, it comes down to having written scope language that defines what we don't perform instead of what we do fly. There is no reason to belabor this point since everything I'm hearing about the JV language is an improvement over the US Air based scope language that defines our small jet flying. I hope the concepts of the JV language are appropriately modified and applied to make other scope language more certain.

IMHO management came at that scope issue in bad faith, but there is so much money obligated on this small jet outsourcing that it is nigh impossible to stop one management starts investing millions in these things. Chairman Moak and our Association did the right thing - fighting to protect our contract.

Is the open floor the place to engage in "extensive dialogue and communication" ? Out of respect for our leadership it is not productive to corner them in public. We benefit from the public perception of our Reps being the most intelligent and solidly supported men on this planet.

These debates are best held in private, or over a friendly cup of coffee on a Saturday morning.

(sent via PM)

Anderson says otherwise at in Command. (not the first time - different guys, different times, different circumstances and it is a very dynamic business) But are you stating our Company has no interest in replacing DC9's, MD88's and 757's that are reaching the end of their economic lives? Everyone seems to concur the MD90's are not working out as hoped. For one they aren't CATIII airplanes without expensive modifications.

I agree with you (as evidenced by RAH's 190 rates) that the E-170 rates are dangerous to our negotiating agenda. But if we control those negotiations we are much more certain of the outcome. Frankly I trust our negotiators a lot more than I do Compass's, Comair's, Mesaba's etc .... I see the E175 as a distinct from other 76 seaters since it's derivatives are 737 and DC9 replacements (by public admission of members of our BOD, Steenland for one).

Not putting flying on the Delta list creates a different kind of hostage - furloughs... and even if not furloughed, all of our small jets compete with their small jets anyway. Our only leverage is our monopolization of our flying. Everything that is outsourced reduces our leverage.

Also, I'm concerned about the effect of flow down on Delta pilots. If forced to flow, when does a Delta pilot get "recalled" ? Is it after the hundreds of NWA furlough bypass pilots? What happens to flow down pilots if they are off the property when we enter into the next corporate transaction?

Call me "chicken little" as some have, but scope and job protections are like terrain clearance procedures, they have to be designed for worst case scenarios.

The pilots of our airline have, through resolution, asked for re-evaluation which has not been performed, or if performed, has not been communicated.

For example, even our Reps were a little surprised at the announcements on Compass a month before the meeting where that decision is supposed to be considered.

Just surprised(pleasantly) that I did not get MD off the 330. Not even going to look to see why.
One AE at a time. Next one Jan 2010?

Slow,

I keep hearing this. Please explain the mechanism of how it makes us hostages. NWA, an almost evenly matched competitor could not make DAL a hostage and force DOH in arbitration, so what makes you think a DCI could?


What do you mean by incremental type? MD90, 717, E190/95?

Divesture of Compass....?
 

Happening? What are the effects of it for both DAL and CPZ pilots? Positive/negative effects?