Denny, I'm glad your are on tonight. I respect your opinions and take you at your word about not selling out. My point is that each individual will vote based on his own self interests. For someone to say they know how a large group of individuals will vote is presumptive at best. What I was saying was not that I know how individuals will vote, but where the group's self interests lie and predicting group behavior from that.

I hope you are right and people like you will prevail. Otherwise I will be out of a job as will a thousand others. I hope you can understand my passion on the subject as well as Bar's (although me may not want to be assosiated with the likes of me since he is far more eloquent).

 

How about we get back to juicy rumors? It has been really boring lately, and with all the huge things that "WERE" going to happen with the JAL deal, any ideas what could be coming next? What a let down.

 

What sports season is this? Basketball? Okay, LeBron Delta James was warming up for a playoff game and the crowd, us, were hoping that he'd have a good game and right then the referee threw the ball right at his crotch and he's out. The referee did it on behalf of the other team. We're waiting to see if he comes back in during the first quarter and until then plan A is on hold.

Thats basically how it was explained to me. Someone else might have more information, a better analogy and actually answer your question.

 

You can put a face to scope erosion on the bottom by simply saying "look outside..." "no sir, that is not an Airbus, its an Embraer..."*

But until we can put a face on scope on the top end we just won't get as much attention as it should from the whole group, top to bottom, left to right.

*not making that one up at all. Its a small percentage of people you fly with who don't pay attention but it always worries you that your sample might be skewed and that too many might not be engaged.

 

So why do we always think of giving Scope concessions for the “hypothetical” pay raise? I hear guys mention that pilots will quickly give up 76 seat Scope in a heartbeat for a 25% pay-raise – why is that? Why not give up half of our sick leave for a 25 % pay-raise? Why not give up 5% of company matching funds? Hey, how about giving up the 5th week of vacation? At least these give-aways will affect the entire pilot group.

Could it be that small jet scope disproportional impacts the junior pilots? No that can’t be correct, because that would be kind of sleazy – some guys selling out other guys for personal gain. If the company wants a scope concession for anything - how about proportional scope? Let’s say we allow 1 wide-body joint venture international code share flight for every wide-body DAL flight, for a 25% pay-raise. Then the whole seniority group would have to think long and hard about how much they want that 25% pay-raise. That would absolutely, and should absolutely, never fly. Well then, why is it OK to sell out 76 seat scope? Answer – it shouldn’t be, and if we are truly a union we will not give another inch on SCOPE.

Delta can fly as many 76 seat and 100 seat aircraft as they want – all they have to do is put a Delta crew in the cockpit.

It appears the company is already starting to shape the new merged DAL. We are parking all the DC-9s and flooding MEM with RJs – here we go again.

Since we merged the company has parked the 747 freighters, and is now parking the lions share of the DC-9 fleet. How long until the all too predictable management demand – “We need 76/90/100 seat feed to support the hubs. Who the hell are the MEM RJs feeding? Other RJs! Screw that – wake up guys, we are like the frog in the pot of boiling water – we don’t even realize that we are being cooked.

How many Pilots did we have when the merger was announced? How many do we have now? Ask yourself the same question in two more years. Yeah, I know we don’t have any furloughs, well I agree, that is good, but shrinking the airline by attrition, which we have been doing, and continue to do, aint so hot either.

Scoop

 

EXCELLENT POST!

 

agreed! Filler

 

Satch,

I do understand your passion and concern. I may not be towards the bottom of the list but I DO remember what it was like to be there. It doesn't seem like all that long ago! I didn't get furloughed in the early 90's but it was definitely a concern when I was seeing agents and other nonpilot personnel get laid off with 20+ years under their belt as well 500 or so pilots. I do remember the angst.

I cannot say how any one will vote other than myself and all I can say is I will vote against any scope concession beyond what has already been given. Enough is enough and I've had it.

It's a fine line you are using to distinguish your argument from what you were saying to keenster. That's the last I will say about that!

I do think scope has become a front burner issue with more than just the people posting on this forum. I just changed councils to the one close to home (didn't have one close prior to the merger) and went to my first ALPA meeting in years. I can tell you that my reps are VERY concerned about job retention and creation. I hope all the MEC is concerned.

I'm a fairly pragmatic guy and realize we will not get everything we want in the next contract. But I do expect big improvements in scope, pay, scheduling etc. I look forward to the time when we can be debating the merits (and demerits) of a tentative agreement on this forum. I have learned a lot from the discussions here and expect I will be all the better educated, by both sides, to form my opinion of a potential new contract.

Anyway, I can promise you I will vote against any thing that relaxes scope any further.

Denny

 

Am I missing something? Anything above 76 seats is ours now per the PWA, and we already have rates for them. I see no one talking about giving them up other than a few paranoid junior pilots. I have not spoken to a single Rep who would even contemplate any more give on Scope, no matter the quid. The only way we are going to get anywhere in 2012 is a unified pilot group, and the quickest way to destroy it is by contemplating selling Scope (and the frozen N pension). I see or hear no talk of either.

Does that mean that a few of our 1% er's won't suggest it or that management won't try? Of course not. It's ours to lose, not to capture. Call your Reps, write resolutions, and recall anyone who does not protect Scope.

Also keep your eye on the ball - it's not just RJ's, but cabaotage, foreign ownership, code shares, bad Open Skies - all these are sources of potential outsourcing. We are still screwed if we maintain 100 seat flying but lose the above.

 

Yes, but it is much more entertaining to watch the online thrashing every time Republic Airways is in the news. Reality is so boring, conspiracy theories are much more fun.