How then do you explain the scope improvements we have made since 1986. At that point we had no scope. The company could fly anything they wanted. In fact they were flying 4 engine 100 seat capable jets at ASA. We were able to end that and bring the number down to 50 seats. We did it before and we can do it again.

In addition there has only been one time in the history of pilot contracts where there were significant pay cuts. That was under threat of a chapter 11 filing and then a actual chapter 11 filing. We had large losses in scope at the same time. The threat of a chapter 11 filing was when the Malone MEC gave away the EMB170/175. Our single biggest scope mistake.

The company has been stating a replacement 100 seat jet would be ordered in a matter of months since 1991 when the nines were retired. I am not hold ing my breath 20 years later. I personally have heard senior management on at least 3 occasions mention the fact that they can fly a 150 seat jet for almost the same cost as a 100 seat jet. After 20 years I am starting to think that might be their plan.

Here you go!

http://www.strykepc.com/myspace/ou/greatd.jpg

Unless of course some major gets a high pay scale in the early 2000's and with a huge rj release....then after a bk .....pay gone, rj's remain.

4. Sell the ALPA building in DC, reduce overhead. A lot of ALPA employees can probably do their jobs from home.

5. Cut ALPA National salaries across the board, in this economy with high unemployment, whoever doesn't agree, can be easily replaced. Geee, when I had to take a 40% pay cut, I had to stay. :(

6. New policy, if ALPA members in general take pay cuts and lose pensions, ALPA employees share the pain, after all, we pay their salaries and benefits.

7. De-conflict ALPA National. (Won't happen due to DFR lawsuits) :D

While I agree that our current scope is too liberal (though contractually legal) when I got hired under our 96 contract, the company could outsource unlimited flying of 70 seats or less.

At least now we have some limits, albeit feeble ones.

So very well said. And the best way to keep an outrageous demand outrageous is by waiting until it is made to shoot it down, not by giving it legitimacy upfront.

There is such universal agreement on the notion that scope is not negotiable on this board, and most likely in the pilot group. It is then baffling that many are getting their panties in a wad because the MEC Chairman, when reflecting upon what the membership told him was most important, didn't decide to add any editorials to suggest the pilots were confused and really meant scope is important.

I don't think the Delta pilots are confused at all: they say what they mean. If the reps and the reps' rep hear from us that we want more money, it's probably because most of us are asking for... more money. Then again, most pilots probably believe scope is not a negotiatble item, and are smart enough not to make it a negotiable item by negotiating about it in public.

Of course, the company will attempt to make outrageous demands in terms of outsourcing (including the heavy-gauge JV stuff, which is even more dangerous than the RJ plague), and at that time, I would expect the MEC, the Chairman, and the Negotiating Committing, to flatly tell them it's not a negotiating item.

I can't think of anything more ridiculous than a strategy of preempting negotiations by giving the opposition a list of non-negotiable items. The mere act of doing so weakens our position, and accomplishes nothing but the company's homework, by drafting a hostage list for them.

So the fact that Scope isn't mentioned doesn't bother me at all. I expect that, as we get more discussion sessions going about our next contract, we will discuss Scope, just like we will address Retirement, etc.

If I look for flaws in TO's letter, it's actually that I think he made a mistake by revelaing what pilots tell their reps is of primary concern to them. If I read him correctly, pilots think the contract needs a little tweaking, but they want money, and they want it fast. "I want money, and I want it fast" doesn't sound like a great slogan, or the foundation to a great negotiation. "I want a clean contract back, I want my dignity back, I want my flying back, and I want rates that reflect my worth. I'm willing to let the place burn in my quest to get it"... sounds more like it.

So it's not that TO said too little that bothers me, is that even the line about what is primary was superfluous. Unfortunately he may be quite accurate about what pilots want, which is all the more reason to have ommitted it.

Yeah got it.

Really anxious to see how 28 seats in the forward 57 cabin are going to look. Me's thinks it'll be tight. Also interesting we can squeeze another row into the 6 door 57's with slimmer seats.

Wanna bet out f/a's are fretting with these configs and the M9K's and M8K's coming down the line? Far less space to work.

Flew one of the reconfigured M88s and the FAs really hated it. Boarding couldn't be accomplished at all while catering and they complained bitterly (imagine:eek:) about the trash cart.

At which point we remind them that we already gave up 42% of our pay, most of our retirement, and thousands of our jobs. We are not "giving up" anything else!!!