Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-08-2011 | 07:58 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
It isn't set in stone, and that's the problem.
Right now our MEC mission statement doesn't include any language directing it to recapture or extend the amount of Delta flying that is performed by Delta pilots.
I for one would sleep better if our association's mission statement included scope language. Maybe it's time to add that.
Cheers
George
Right now our MEC mission statement doesn't include any language directing it to recapture or extend the amount of Delta flying that is performed by Delta pilots.
I for one would sleep better if our association's mission statement included scope language. Maybe it's time to add that.
Cheers
George
Carl
01-08-2011 | 08:04 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
So the company comes to DALPA and says. "We would like to convert 20 of our 70 seaters allowed to 76 seaters. If you agree we have a tentative order for 100 C series jets. The switch from 70 seaters will occur in a 1 for 5 ratio. For each 5 C series jets on the property and flying we get to convert 1 70 seater to a 76 seater. The overall fleet number which is currently at XXX cannot go below the current number plus the C series slots or we lose the extra 76 seaters. If C series jets are removed from the fleet we remove the 76 seats in a inverse proportion. Deliveries of the C series will start in 6 months and we will post a bid next week.
Would you say no???
Would you say no???
Carl
01-08-2011 | 08:17 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
01-08-2011 | 08:35 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 1
I would absolutely say no. The fact that you would go to this length in order to set up this hypothetical is very telling. You've obviously done so because you are trying to show everyone that we all really agree with you...that further weakening of scope is just a matter of finding the right price. You clearly believe that. I'm very concerned that DALPA agrees with that - but they know they cannot say it.
Carl
Carl
Just because C series is being added in this hypothetical situation, doesn't negate scope erosion at the other end. Besides, just imagine the parked DC-9s as those C series planes. Then it really doesn't sound like a good deal at all. That's because . . . it's not.
01-08-2011 | 09:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
01-08-2011 | 09:46 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 9
From: 3fidy
01-08-2011 | 09:56 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
It's going on as we speak...
[*]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.[/LIST]Guess what, we just cancelled HNL flying from a bunch of our hubs with AS picking up he route often a day later...
[LIST][*]Should AS buy HA our current Section 1 would permit AS A330 flying HNL-NRT with the DL code.
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
[/URL]
[*]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.[/LIST]Guess what, we just cancelled HNL flying from a bunch of our hubs with AS picking up he route often a day later...
[LIST][*]Should AS buy HA our current Section 1 would permit AS A330 flying HNL-NRT with the DL code.
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
[/URL]
Unfortunately the Alaska pilot group, under ALPA leadership, have also failed to learn from the mistakes of others who went before them. They do not have the necessary scope language to prevent a surge in "Alaska Express" flying. The old camel's nose under the tent again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel's_nose
The unfortunate short sighted signing by Moak to allow the Alaska Air Group flying to come to the merged Delta will now give birth to a secondary wave of stolen flying via Alaska Express.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Sorry western based Delta guys/gals. Prepare to be screwed again.
Last edited by Jack Bauer; 01-09-2011 at 01:25 PM.
01-08-2011 | 10:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
I will make another prediction: If/when Delta purchases Alaska, ALPA leadership will sign off on a whole slew of more "regional" flying because "it was already there being flown by "Alaska Express" at time of purchase".
Last edited by Jack Bauer; 01-08-2011 at 10:28 PM.
01-08-2011 | 10:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
i would absolutely say no. The fact that you would go to this length in order to set up this hypothetical is very telling. You've obviously done so because you are trying to show everyone that we all really agree with you...that further weakening of scope is just a matter of finding the right price. You clearly believe that. I'm very concerned that dalpa agrees with that - but they know they cannot say it.
Carl
Carl
01-09-2011 | 12:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
From: Still in one
So the company comes to DALPA and says. "We would like to convert 20 of our 70 seaters allowed to 76 seaters. If you agree we have a tentative order for 100 C series jets. The switch from 70 seaters will occur in a 1 for 5 ratio. For each 5 C series jets on the property and flying we get to convert 1 70 seater to a 76 seater. The overall fleet number which is currently at XXX cannot go below the current number plus the C series slots or we lose the extra 76 seaters. If C series jets are removed from the fleet we remove the 76 seats in a inverse proportion. Deliveries of the C series will start in 6 months and we will post a bid next week.
Would you say no???
Would you say no???
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
