Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1655184)

It just seems to me that many of us have changed our viewpoints (on both sides). I'm now of the opinion we should negotiate more restrictive scope, just not use any negotiating capital to do so.

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1655184)

I don't think there is anything "temporary" about it. I think it's a result of the company getting the 717's and getting rid of the 50 seaters. Whether you think Delta would have gotten these with or without C2012, it's a moot point. We are getting them and the ratio of flying is definitely swinging in mainline's favor, contractually. Yes, economics has something to do with it, management has finally realized the economics of the RJ are not what they wish for so they are upgauging. As far as regulatory factors, I think the 1500 hour rule is HUGE! It looks like they cannot, or soon will not, be able to staff DCI properly. (On a side note, maybe this is why they haven't purchased all the new 76 seaters they can...) The only "temporary" factor I see is possibly the economic one and, as a whole, I don't think the economy is going gangbusters anyway.

You are absolutely right, what makes scope changes permanent are changes to the scope clause... It's just now the shoe is on the other foot so to speak. In Contract 2012 some were willing to use some negotiating capital to limit RJ scope and others were not. It just seems to me that many of us have changed our viewpoints (on both sides). I'm now of the opinion we should negotiate more restrictive scope, just not use any negotiating capital to do so. (As many on this forum expressed in the C2012 discussions.)

Denny

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1655216)

Should a union represent members differently, to a different standard?

Should a union rpresent pilots within the same airline to a different standard?

Should a union sell one member's job to benefit another member?

Should a union use one member's work to pay another member?

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1655237)

Denny;
The MEC directs the negotiating committee for section 6 using our secret surveys. This is just my viewpoint, but as to highlight number 2, scope is more than just RJs, DALPA closed the loophole that RAH was violating, 3 year JV lookback was added, bigger RJs were allowed, and the other scope changes were (contractually) losses (IMO) regardless of the decrease in hulls/RJ jobs. Its what's on paper that counts. What we have on paper has continuously devolved.

Agreed. Don't think I ever said it was just about RJ's. Most all of us agreed to a certain extent on the bigger stuff.

Bullet 3, Again, scope is more than RJs, The JV is out of whack, Virgin Atlantic is still fuzzy, and the language still allows outsourcing domestically (AK and RJs). Regardless, I am not convinced that the MEC is interested in solidifying section 1 except as the company requests.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence but not your second. I'm willing to see what happens in C2015 before I make that determination.

Bullet 1, the economy factor is definitely a big issue. The Eurozone is certainly destabilized with growing factions desiring to return to a debt reset with re-nationalized currency, Japan is still in the doldrums, Russia is re-USSR-ing, and Chinese growth has crested the wave. The US is stagnant, but money is cheap, I still see the possibility of a second recession about a year out...

I feel like you kinda made my point for Flamer better than I did! :) I was trying to say the economy in both the US and the World is not in the greatest shape and yet we are flying more block hours...

You are right that at this point C12 is moot. If the economy re-tanks, we do (at least) have flowback protections in the contract (practically speaking, that's almost as good as having 76 seaters on the property). However, using negotiating capital to solidify section 1 is the best use of said capital IMO. I don't think it would take too much negotiating to really have some section 1 wins in the current environment.

If the economy re-tanks, we will be glad we have the current protections in our scope clause. I would definitely like to see them improved. Just not real sure if I want to spend any capital for them. Hey, hasn't everybody on here been saying "Why do we have to give something to get something?" Okay, I agree with them! :D

I am FOR solidifying the language in section 1 and using some capital to do it.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1655262)

See the above.

Denny

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1655264)

Denny;
I know we are not far apart, I just want it in writing. And I didn't slam the MEC, I said I wasn't convinced... It is different.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1655268)

Exactly. We have to "get it in writing" otherwise we don't own it. Even if things work out in our favor now, without making progress in Section 1, it can just be reversed the next downturn or whatever. And there will be a next downturn. We are due another huge correction and the rest of the world has issues as well. As for the 1500 hour "rule" that can and will be changed if it ever actually leads to a crisis. Better to lock some of that in now while we have the chance. C2015 needs to be a solid win in many areas, not just scope. But IMO we can't afford to pretend this issue is magically fixing itself. The DC-9-10 is our single biggest fleet type and its being outsourced off our list. That needs to be addressed and fixed.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1655268)

Exactly. We have to "get it in writing" otherwise we don't own it. Even if things work out in our favor now, without making progress in Section 1, it can just be reversed the next downturn or whatever. And there will be a next downturn. We are due another huge correction and the rest of the world has issues as well. As for the 1500 hour "rule" that can and will be changed if it ever actually leads to a crisis. Better to lock some of that in now while we have the chance. C2015 needs to be a solid win in many areas, not just scope. But IMO we can't afford to pretend this issue is magically fixing itself. The DC-9-10 is our single biggest fleet type and its being outsourced off our list. That needs to be addressed and fixed.