Pay rates come & go, but scope is more difficult to gain back. I think it's of equal importance. It's actually more important IMO. I hope WB guys are watching the serious threats to our industry. Don't care about RJ's? Fine, but you better start thinking about who's going to defend against foreign ownership, cabotage, JV's & Codeshares. WB flying is very much endangered, if not more then NB flying.

Food for thought.

 

The Captains could take their remaining 18% of Delta flying and strike then, leaving seven or eight thousand type rated First Officers and legions of RJ pilots with a decision to make ... . How do you figure that might turn out?

I would not continue to press to test on the politics of division, even if just being sarcastic.

 

Uncle Sam,

Thank you for your response.

What I am trying to convey is that scope is the foundation for our ability to negotiate pay, retirement and the rest of the contract. Scope defines whether you, or I, are Delta pilots and what we fly. Scope defines who our union represents.

Our MEC's only leverage is the power of representing Delta pilots. Our power is a direct function of our pilots. If we outsource, that power declines. With less power comes poorer results and the declining trend lines we have only recent seen turn around.

Scope is a leading indicator for our bargaining results in other areas of the contract. To gain in these consensus areas, we need a foundation.

 

Maybe. They get that we want a raise and communication. How they could completely leave out scope, let alone refuse to say that its a top priority for scope relief to be rolled back, should be alarming. Not chicken little alarming, but very concerning in any case.

Obviously we can get a raise if we gut scope more. Even allowing the ridiculous current amount is worth a temporary cookie a politico type can call a victory.

Scope > pay because without scope you can't get/keep pay.

 

Word.

If pay is important, scope is key because scope is pay.

If retirement is important, scope is key because scope is retirement.

If work rules are important, scope is key because scope is work rules.

Without the seats on property, it doesn't matter what the seat pay's or how many days off it gets or how much retirement it earns.

Can we sell scope for pay or retirement or whatever? Sure. For a while. But the only reason that is possible to begin with is that there is still scope to sell, because those that came before us either fought to get it, fought to keep it, or managed to keep from selling all of it (yet). The scope pendulum has swung way, way too far the other way. It is the front and center issue now. We are not talking about a few 30 seat props or a handful of new to the market RJ's. Half our block hours and pilot jobs are outsourced already. Half. And not just to foreign JV's, but to the lowest bidders right here in our country.

That has to be fixed and we will have to be the ones to fix it. Some before us have fought the good fight and others before us have dropped the ball and we are where we are. But we can't build the house taller without strengthening the foundation. Scope is the foundation of every single issue in the profession in general and for our pilot group in particular.

Scope is the top issue. No contest.

 

. . . . . . . . . . thanks

 

Very well stated!

 

Scope and its protection is the most important issue at both SWAPA and CALALPA, fwiw. Nothing moves there without first addressing it.

 

Very well stated Bar. But also of note is the politics of Scope. I have a strong suspicion about ALPA national's intention with regard to the major airlines' Scope clauses. Many other pilots do as well. The fact that Mr. Moak didn't mention Scope at all in his campaign letter was troubling, but I was told to give the new DALPA chairman a chance. After all, it would be DALPA negotiating our next contract not ALPA.

So I gave O'Malley a chance, and he did exactly what Moak did. No mention of Scope at all. Should this lessen my suscpicion of the motives of ALPA...and now DALPA? If you know that DPA's main criticism against you is the conflict of interest about Scope and dual representation, why would you choose NOT to mention Scope? Even if you didn't mean it, it would only have taken one additional bullet point. I simply don't understand why one additional line was just impossible for O'Malley to write.

Carl

 

Hence we need DPA !