I think in many cases we can completely can a lot of the "long term contract" flying and Delta is only on the hook for the aircraft leases. While we would still have to eat those, we would get out 100% of the fuel, MX, crew, middle management, most insurance and all other costs, even if we parked them and ate the leases 100%.

Some of those lease costs could likely be significantly mitigated when it comes time in the very near future to talk turkey WRT new leases for 100-300 narrowbody aircraft plus regular existing lease renegotiations anyway. "Sure, we'd be happy to go with your leasing company for these XX Billion dollars worth of leases over the coming decades, if only we could get out of XXX Million in these useless RJ leases we could totally pick your company over that other one" kind of thing.

But in any case, worst case we park them and eat the leases only, which is only a smal part of the massive RJ deadweight bloat. If we recapture scope, we can cancel some agreements early and assume the leases, which we're paying 100% for anyway, and I'm sure we can come up with some alternate bogus day trader tomfoolery paper trick to pretend those lease obligations aren't on our books when every BBA sophomore and above knows they are and always have been Let them play the seperater certificate trick within our own airline, as there is no need to outsource to a true third party provider to do so.

The ACMI air groups offer absolutely zero value other than the miniscule pocket change we get from the inherent savings derived from all of them undercutting eachother by a perpetual few perent anyway, and that is largely eaten up in redundant management overhead, operational inefficiencies and product/service degredation in the first place.

We can dump most of them, assume the leases, fly them ourselves or park them and if gas keeps climbing the "deal me an ace" crowd can agree to fly them for free and they won't make economic sense. Being on the hook for the lease payment is nothing compared to a massive fleet of insanely cost ineffective outsource jets.

Could you update us on that history? At some point all Delta flying was performed by Delta pilots. When did it change?

Using the first & biggest example, ASA was flying ASA code, selling passengers ASA tickets. When they became the founding member of Delta Connection the extent of the coordination was Delta displaying EV code besides DL schedules. Eastern had a similar deal with ASA.

Substitute American Airlines for Eastern and Alaska Airlines is more of a "Delta Connection Carrier" than ASA was 22 years ago.

Eventually ASA started operating 120 seat jets and shopping for 737's. That was the first I ever heard of scope concerns. There's a big void in my knowledge of Delta scope prior to 96.

We bought more than 500 of them. That's more than a ten billion dollar acquisition. Not sure how many we've been able to spin off.

By the way, we paid $21 million for each 50 seat CRJ. AirTran paid $18 million for 717's. (per Jerry Atkin)

Disregard ... repetitive.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../0/1148021.jpg

If gas had been more expensive then the economy could handle and had the BAE-146 been as good as todays E175 then maybe this battle would've been fought in the 1990s.

I hope you're right, but scope can easily become DALPAs Little Big Horn.

Interesting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...2005-04-13.jpg

I don't know, but here's a cut from the 1990 PWA Section 1.B.

B. SCOPE
1. Except as permitted in Paragraph 2 of this Section 1.B., all present or future flying performed in and for the service of the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a subsidiary, shall be performed by the pilots on the Delta Air Lines system seniority list in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or any other applicable agreement between the Company and the Air Line Pilots Association. There shall be no wet‑leasing or subcontracting of the Company's flying. It is specifically understood that this paragraph includes, but is not limited to, all revenue flying, ferry flights, charters, wet leases and/or subcontracting the Company may perform for others and flight training (except for initial flight training conducted by the factory or manufacturer for the Company).
2. It is agreed that the Company shall not:
a. Acquire and operate as a separate entity any existing airline which operates aircraft with more than seventy (70) seats and which would be owned, controlled (i.e., (a) operational control, (b) appointment of a majority of the Board of Directors, (c) ownership of majority of stock) or operated by the Company, whether directly or indirectly through a subsidiary controlled by the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a subsidiary, unless the flying for such airline is performed by pilots on the Delta Air Lines system seniority list in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or any other applicable agreement between Delta Air Lines and the Air Line Pilots Association, except that this subparagraph shall not preclude separate operation of an acquired airline for a phase‑in period of up to one year after the effective date of the acquisition under the seniority list of the acquired airline, provided that no pilot on the Delta Air Lines system seniority list is furloughed during such phase‑in period.
b. Establish any new airline which operates aircraft with more than seventy (70) seats and which would be owned, controlled or operated by the Company, whether directly or indirectly through a subsidiary controlled by the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a subsidiary, unless the flying for such airline is performed by pilots on the Delta Air Lines system seniority list in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or any other applicable agreement between Delta Air Lines and the Air Line Pilots Association.
c. Sell, lease or otherwise transfer any aircraft owned, leased or operated by the Company, or any new or used airline aircraft on firm order from the manufacturer or owner thereof to any airline which operates aircraft with more than seventy (70) seats and which is owned, controlled or operated by the Company, whether directly or indirectly through a subsidiary controlled by the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a subsidiary, unless the flying for such airline is performed by pilots on the Delta Air Lines system seniority list in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or any other applicable agreement between Delta Air Lines and the Air Line Pilots Association.
3. In the event the Company acquires an airline that operates aircraft with more than seventy (70) seats in accordance with Paragraph B.2.(a) of this Section:
a. The Company agrees to merge with the acquired airline within one (1) year after the effective date of the acquisition, subject to applicable legal and regulatory requirements;
b. The integration of the seniority lists of the two pilot groups shall be subject to approval by the Company; and
c. Wages and benefits for the pilots of the acquired airline, to be effective upon the integration of the two seniority lists, shall be negotiated between the Company and the Association.
Nothing herein shall entitle either the Company or the Association to negotiate any other provision of this Agreement except as this Agreement otherwise permits.

I do know there were times when ASA operated larger aircraft that were grandfathered in for a time (BAe 146, and perhaps the Dash -7s?), but those were a very small number and were fixed at the time.

Still think DALPA should pay for these billboards:

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1306896862

Ridicule is always a good weapon. If avoiding RJ's becomes en vogue for more than just the size of the seats and the fact that windows are at your knees, then you can get somewhere. BTW, I'd never go after they're not as "safe" as mainline, I believe that's a crappy way to act and I seriously doubt they're any less safe.

Anybody got a way we can move 76 seater allowance down below the current quantity or seating back to 50? Just out of curiosity, I don't see anything viable other than to demand the language in the contract and have that undercut by pilots who don't get what scope means.

But how many jobs did ASA/CMR create and how many would they have created with mainline pilots flying RJs? It's all pure speculation, but my bet is that if DAL wanted to have mainline pilots flying RJs they would never have purchased ASA/CMR to begin with. The sole purpose was cheap labor, same goes for the rest of the portfolio. Merging lists wouldn't have prevented furloughs, the jobs still would have gone to the lowest bidder. It's not about merging lists with DCI carriers, it's about capturing the flying.