But, I would also ask, what it managements objective in such a proposal?

Sailing, are you saying that the objective is to convert 70 to 76 seaters by adding the CSeries? Or, are you just throwing out a "what if" just to see how serious we are? Is this another "if we give you a XX% raise, would you give us unlimited 100 seat flying?

 

Ok now I am a little nervous. Jeez. The company wants 100 seaters they'll buy 100 seaters. We agree to more 76 seaters, that's less future 100 seaters we'll get down the road.

 

+1 No.

And, if you want 76 seat flying so bad, we will fly it. I've got 100 DAL seniority list pilots ready to go to school for it right now.


Thanks for trying to buy us with our own money (100 seat flying.) again, but no thanks....

 

I would say No,

Delta passengers on Delta jets flown by DELTA pilots.

 

Two's in. Me too.

 

Here is a prediction. There will be no real battle over relaxing scope in this contract. It wont even become a major issue. The fight will be to try and regain the EMB170/175 flying. If the EFA team can produce the numbers to show we can fly that flying at a reasonable cost compared to DCI it should be a all out war on our part.

 

Heyas,

In the abomination that permitted the creation of Compass, there were provisions that prohibited the sale of Compass until there were 10 DC-9 replacement aircraft in service at the mainline.

You SEE how that mysteriously vanished during the merger...

They put the aircraft into service, with mainline pilots flying them, THEN we'll talk. If ONE single mainline aircraft gets parked for ANY reason, then the ALL the additional DCI aircraft get parked immediately.

Otherwise, go back to counting beans.

Nu

 

It's going on as we speak...

There are many "scope" issues well beyond the RJs.
Take a look at Section 1 of our PWA and compare the AF JV, the old CAL, the RJ and the AS section.

• Our JV with AF is a great example of how to manage scope well and correctly with the ratio of ASMs set at 50% and reviewed annually.
• Our old CAL section had good provisions protecting ETOPs flying to the islands with similar percentages.
• Even the RJ section has ratios of flying set up with RJs required to fly to hubs from outsations and hub-tohub flying by RJs limited to 6%.
• Now look at the AS section the only limit is 25% of hub-to-hub flying and the 86-seat cap on codeshare. There are no Island-flying protections because the authors didn't picture AS doing ETOPs flying the way the CAL provisions were written.

Guess what, we just cancelled HNL flying from a bunch of our hubs with AS picking up he route often a day later...

• Should AS buy HA our current Section 1 would permit AS A330 flying HNL-NRT with the DL code.
  
• Looking over the fence UAL and Air Lingus are looking at setting up a JV to fly MAD-IAD with off seniority-list pilots.
  
• BA set up "Open Skies" to fly CDG-JFK with jets pulled from the BA fleet and staffed with new-hire pilots.

If you believe "scope" is an issue that requires nothing more than cursory attention you are seriously kidding yourself and need to take a look around in this industry on a global level...
We are not immune from these challenges, in fact should we succeed with our pay-restoration efforts - and I hope we do - we make the business case that much more compelling for outsourcing DL flying to non-Delta pilots.

If it is indeed such a "non-issue" just add the few words to the DALPA mission statement that direct the MEC to expand and protect the extent of Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

Cheers
George

Links:
ba-pilots-prepared-strike-openskies-threatens

pilots-wary-of-proposed-united-airlines

Delta cancels PDX HNL

Delta cancels MSP HNL

 

+1

I really hope we hold the line on scope in the upcoming new contract. Enough is enough. What has happened with scope and RJ's may have been appropriate in the past but it isn't anymore.

 

....................