Bar; agreed but each and every pilot get as say. Those are the facts I am referring to. I just do not see guys willing to forgo a raise to capture that flying. If the opportunity presented itself without that cost, maybe. I would love to see it happen, but he is right that the cost is too great. I know you do not like that, I do not either, but as you do, I only have one vote.

I bet you are wrong, and maybe Slow will jump in here to tell you that.

As stated above the point I agree with is the point that the cost is to great to be the primary focus of 2012. Period.
Not going to argue that.
Bar;
As you know I agree with the majority of you points. There are many parts of the article I disagree with and you know that. We discussed that today.

for starters:
Flows do not work, and it is a nice way to rest longevity. It will probably work for us as the flow will be one way in the years ahead, but that does not mean it is true unity. You know where I stand on that.

In regards to studying it:
That is simple. I do not see us swallowing the cost to the rest of the contract that we would have to take to regain the flying. It is that simple. The argument is not framed the way I want it to be. We have talked about that as well. It is not about studying it. It is what the company would require us to give up to gain it, not what the true cost would be. Remember not what we are worth but what is negotiated.

If D-ALPA was willing to take the highest DCI book rates and put it here, you are correct. Alas, it is not totally about our costs. It is the total cost. The ugly truth is that the majority of the cost differences are in the rest of the airline costs.

You and I both want to find a way to make it happen. The issue is that many of our counterparts want to make 2012 about money. Keep the line on scope and give me money and work rule improvements.

And Bar, for the record I am not floating down the stream to the septic tank with him. I am stating that his one point is correct. As for the rest, start a new thread.

 

Bar,
I did not indicate that our scope was perfect, but I think that I speak for the majority of the north pilots in that scope is an important issue even with the senior guys and we would be willing to fight for it. Having flow back is a lot better than being on the street. I have no knowledge of DCI and scope on the DAL side of things, but I agree with most all of your points. I really hate that DAL is branded by some carrier that can give a hoot as to the service it provides. You are only as good as your weakest link and I wish that management would wake up and see this.

 

Really? How do we know? Has anyone asked the question?

My sources say no. Further ALPA officially published that we don't want that flying and our MEC Chairman made the presentation some characterized as "outsourcing is good" (not a completely inaccurate characterization BTW). Hence the reason we have not asked that question.

There was a rumor that management inquired about bringing CPZ on board at current book. That sounds free to me.

Any revision to our negotiating position should begin with serious economic study. Then we need to run the result back through ALPA's own Safety Matrix to ensure our fix is effective and includes consideration of all known consequences. We can't walk in just "knowing" based on preconceived notions (and we don't).
So what? It is not ALPA's problem how they staff the mechanics, or Flight Attendants. In fact, I might even find I enjoy working with others and might could help them see the value of treating Delta passengers like gold. As a Captain, you and I would be in a position to assist our Company roll out a better product to those with Delta tickets.

As always, I encourage SAT to shut me up with the facts. But in the interim it is disappointing that all my work here has failed to help folks see the potential in our union and the direction we need to go to get things on track.

 

Thanks.

ALPA has a history of building flows with the intention that they'll only work in the good direction. This business being what it is, the flow often fails under stress.

Of course this makes sense because the thing was never designed from the outset to work in a worst case scenario.

We have to change that. Job Protection provisions have to be engineered to work in a worst case scenario because that is EXACTLY when they will be called on to function.

I'm sticking with my predictions. The Elliot Wave watchers sure came in to back me up. As always, I hope that I'm wrong.

 

Something that bothers me is the tone that we would not pay or negoitate for scope or flying smaller airplanes because it would cost us to much. I have a problem with this. Does the company never need relief or come to the pilots in need of something at DAL?????? Many times at NWA we got things that we wanted when we were not even in contract negotiations when the company needed relief on certain issues. I would not be as closed minded as some here on this forum.

 

What youve stated is exactly what Moak has stated as his goals. However not once have I heard scope restoration in any form as part of what they "want."



ACL- I gotta side with bar on the economics of the 76 seater deal. Everytime it's brought up Slow and the boys start dancing and say "look over here!" without addressing the question at hand.

 

You are correct

The company has changed and adapted significantly over the years

However;

Despite a slight but perceptible change towards a standard business model, the company remains one of the best airlines in the world for its pilots terms and conditions

It remains unique and I don't think that luck has alot to do with it, maybe some but not all

Thinking that SW success is due to 'luck' is an ostrich game

 

That sounds like a BS rumor to me. Why on earth would management offer to do that at no cost?

As for the general consensus of the DAL-S senior group; I'm confident we are as concerned about scope as the North guys. I'm clearly in the NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE JET crowd.

 

That's a very dangerous thing to do, speak for other people. Are you sure you can see into each and every senior pilot's psyche and know how they will vote?

People will vote their pocketbooks every time. Tell me how far down the list do the full pensions run on the North side? What about the guys just below that? How will they vote when presented with a large increase in pay and DC in return for 120 seats?

I don't deign to know what's in people's hearts or minds, but I do recognize where their self interests lie. It's very hard to be altruistic when faced with only 10 years left to make enough to live on for the rest of your life.
Maybe the inverted seniority of the Roberts Award will save us. Maybe there are enough senior Green guys on narrow bodies to realize how shortsighted trading pay for jobs would be. Watch how many bids we have between now and contract time and see if that anomaly is rectified.

Bar for Chairman.

 

To fully utilize the airplane. No cost is no cost, but management could get more revenue filling 12 more seats. Also 36 jets is not a particularly good sized operation to amortize the costs of running an airline over. But the primary reason, I am told, is because neither ALPA nor management had any idea how to run the flow down when management was thinking of furloughs.

ALPA came to my LEC meeting and explained that because the flown down did not work, it was preventing furloughs. Ohhh Kayy, so our scope works by not working

Anyway, I do believe the job security provisions in our JPWA were effective and am thankful our MEC did a most excellent job getting those provisions negotiated when they did.