Can we talk about scope? Wasn't it last year that Moak signed a letter of agreement letting the company slide on its alleged scope violation because we were afraid of arbitration? Why did this LOA let the company order even more outsourced airplanes? I can see letting them slide to avoid arbitration, but to leave their interpretation open to order even more planes? Come on. I don't think I've ever been more upset about scope than the one yesterday. ALPA will not even admit there's a problem. They keep pointing out that overall DCI jets are decreasing. What's scary to me is that replacing 50 seaters with 70-76 seaters is worse than ordering more 50 seaters, and ALPA keeps pointing out that we are winning the scope battle. We have 4 hour flights across the country being flown by these planes that Delta just ordered more of.

What orders? The RAH jets are already being used on the Frontier part of the certificate, and are being paid for by RAH.

What I don't understand is giving a competitor a CPA with a gauranted profit so they can subsidize their other operations and compete with you.

I raised that same point directly with LM last year and he brushed it off as a non-issue, I had also addressed it with my reps and they also didn't care.

At least ALPA has a seat at the table!

These are part of the 255 jets allowed under our joint contract. The very contract which was approved by our own pilot group. Plus RAH already owns these E170's, & will shift them from the Frontier system to the DAL system.

The LOA that Lee Moak signed to avoid arbitration has absolutely nothing to do with the RAH E170 deal. The only thing that LOA allowed was to keep the number of 76 seaters at 153.

We decided not to go to arbitration because there was zero upside to that choice. We could only loose. The company agreed to Dalpa's interpretation of the scope section going forward. They got to keep the extra RJ's. At the time with the jets being delivered the company would have been legal for those extra RJ's before we could get done with the arbitration.
We also got some limited furlough protection. Not one Delta pilot even the most hard core scope hawks has told me that this was a bad choice after they actually read the decision and the facts behind it.
Had we gone to arbitration and won with a slam dunk the company would have then been legal to keep the aircraft anyway with the projected increase in mainline fleet numbers. Had we lost the company would have been able to carry even more RJ's for however long the scope section remained in future contracts. With the number of MD-90's now owned by Delta the agreement is limiting the RJ's now allowed. You want to fight smart not stupid.

Okay. Thanks for the information. At the very least, this shows us that the company still wants to outsource all of us even though the company is preaching insourcing.

watch for increased numbers of 76 seat jets attempted on the next round. Just hope ALPA doesn't sell it as " look, they got rid of x number of 50 seaters so this isn't really an increase, we actually got rid of RJ's.....this just allows the company to make more money that will allow us to BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Exactly. Oh and they are good for the mainline. And we will get a solid no furlough clause. And if we grow they can add more, but if we shrink they get to keep them. Maybe we can go up to 84 seats, which is just an E190 with first class. It will give us a competitive advantage! Weeeeeee!

ALPA/DALPA must prove to the membership that they are serious about scope. The epic fails of the past must not be repeated.

Vote no on anything without scope recapture.

Most of us are realistic enough to realize DALPA will put some thing (scope) concessionary in front of us. It is up to us to turn it down.