Now you have an tone from a previous lawsuit. I know that Penkamp would agree with you. So would Joe Merchant.

Bottom line is DAL owns the flying and we can scope it back if we choose to.

ALPA national really has nothing to do with this.

Our scope has been sold by our negotiators and we have ratified it. What basis do we have to sue for what we negotiated and voted for? Really?

(I didn't vote for it, ACL did not, maybe you did not, but the majority did ratify it)

ACL65:

ALPA has always had its representational duty to its members and prohibitions against negotiating to harm other members.

You made the point that if we negotiated a contract that brought flying back to us at the expense of DCI ALPA carriers, that the ALPA pres would not sign it. That is detrimental to us. Why does the prohibition against harm in negotiations only go one way?

It does work both ways, but no other ALPA groups negotiate against our scope. Frankly, they don't have to.

If Comair negotiated 737 flying putting Delta pilots out of work, the tools would be available to us too.

I'm with you. I agree, DCI moves RJ airframes from ASA to Pinnacle to Comair and all around and ALPA has NOTHING to do with it, does taking lower pay rates to "get more airplanes" also fall under "at the expense of other ALPA pilots?

Its NOT a litigious item if DAL pilots "picked up some of the flying" that DCI is supposedly shopping around to other carriers all the time, and over time eventually "picked up ALL of it"?

I do NOT agree that it is a one-way valve and we have to start working on the ways that it can come back......Compass is the first step.

We need to let our reps know that we should not squander away the opportunity presented to us the same way the idiot CAL scab MEC members let COEX get split off.

Union means "JOINING TOGETHER". Why would "UNION" leaders NOT want to make the UNION bigger? There is more power to bargain for the raises the old guys want when you control more of the flying being performed, how is that so hard to understand?

Shiznit:

Folks seem to be misunderstanding my meaning by "one way check valve." It is not a one way valve under law, but the forces acting on the valve (on both sides) seem to like its one way operation.

The way things work now:

1. We negotiate and ratify lousy convoluted scope
2. DCI pilots find "gray" areas like the LOA2006-10 interpretation
3. The gray areas are then resolved in favor of outsourcing.

This happens because:

1. We wrote lousy scope language
2. Our MEC thinks it benefits the Delta pilots to outsource flying anyway

Evidence:

1. 76 seat scope grievance settlement increasing 90 seat platforms to 156
2. LOA2006-10 interpretation
3. Upcoming Compass divestiture

Bucking Bar, Can you tell me one time you heard our MEC state that it benefits us to outsource flying? I suspect what you heard is that Delta benefits by having feed to the mainline which is a very true statement. The issue becomes when the feed becomes the mainline which is what is going on now with the 170/175. There are many issues involved with what determines where the cutoff from mainline to feed begins and ends.

There are two things I notice from junior pilots when discussing scope. First they do not have a correct history of how scope has evolved at Delta. I can't tell you how many times I heard how we once had 100 percent of the flying at Delta scoped and gave it away because we did not want it. What a BS statement.
The second thing is a total disregard for the economics involved in running any airline operation. It does Delta pilots no good at all to scope all flying and have the company drop the flying because we can't be cost competitive. We then lose the flying and the feed. If the flying can't be flown at a cost competitive basis at the mainline then its is better to allow as feed which generates more mainline jobs. I believe the 170/175 can be flown at a cost competitive basis at the mainline. I don't believe the 50 seaters can for a large list of reasons. If we scoped that flying it eventually would simply go away and the feed would be lost. These questions are all very complex economic items that require a lot of data and the right people to study to try and make a determination of what can work and what wont. I can assure you that no line pilots have that information. We simply post our gut feelings with nothing to back it up.
I know the MEC and the vast majority of Delta pilots feel the 170/175 falls on the mainline side of the equation. DALPA did not give that flying away because they did not want it. The flying was taken by massive industry changes and the economic situation since 911. The single most critical error was allowing the gross weight increase that brought the 170/175 to DCI. That by the way occurred before Moak and almost anyone involved with the current MEC.
What we need is the ability to negotiate from a position of power. We have not had that in a long time. We may have it in the next contract. It is possible to role scope back and it has been done at Delta in the past. How many new hire pilots are aware that ASA once flew 4 engine 90 seat jets for Delta in the 80's. How many are aware of the Ron Allen threat to outsource everything smaller then the 757's which could have happened under the scope of the time. We rolled it back then and we can roll it back in the future. It will be a fight. It wont happen overnight. There will have to be a phase in to allow the company to unwind contracts or let them expire. Setting the proper expectations now are very important. We need however to make this about scope and not about trying to tell management how to run their airline. Scope the flying and let management decide how they want to handle it.

Lets see, in reference to the last paragraph. Yes, I remember Ron saying that. I also remember the 146 at ASA. There were four and the fifth spare had 90 seats in them. In fact ASA got that aircraft with no lease payments as they were doing the heavy checks on the other.

I also agree that the economic of the 50 do not make sense here. They also do not make sense at DCI. In fact they make sense on point to point, but that is still a stretch. My point was that, with all of the pass through costs, and margins that we pay, it could in fact be done cheaper here than there. We give SKW on average over 100 million a year for margin. That goes a long way in the argument that we are too expensive.
As for junior guys not getting it. I disagree. Many saw it from the other side. After 9-11 we saw DCI grow by over 400o pilots. It is a travesty. What I want to know is this. If the MEC "never" said these things then why do their actions betray that statement?
I heard in the first person LM state that DCI was good for Delta pilots, because it kept our pay up. I disagreed with that statement then and I disagree with it now. DCI costs a lot of money to operate.

I heard him say he would hold the line on scope at 70 seats. Then again, I heard all the ATL reps say the same thing. A week later they were selling us on how good a deal it was. And my favorite quote.....it's only 30 aircraft. What are we up to now, 150 or so 76 seaters?

Don't trust a word he says.

Question .. for thos of you who have been with Delta and through a furlough, what steps does the company take first?

Do they offer leaves of absences first? Or do they just his us all at once?