Originally Posted by Reroute

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.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Oh, I know. I believe you.

I just believe that had the pilots in command of the pilots in command had had the big picture in mind they could've made pilots aware of what could happen and nipped this before it got started and long before regional jets out numbered mainline jets 619 to 514.

I'd blame the pilots and there were a lot who deserve to be blamed, but Carl is right to push back and say not every pilot bought into this back then. I remember AMR's pilots demanding that any RJ be flown by mainline.

But people bought into the CRJ-100 as a Brasilia/ATR/Saab replacement and never realized it'd be a 732 and DC9 replacement and therein pushing the smaller jets to replace the bigger jets throughout the domestic fleet. And people signed off on pilots who had PFT and $12,000/yr starting salaries flying replacement jets, it was outsourcing to the lowest and most abused bidder.

What I am really saying is basically we needed someone to have seen the CRJ-100 for what it would become.

That takes a lot of wacky imagination in 1993 but had someone at ALPA realized it and said no when the opportunity arose where would we be today? Imagine if we had SWA scope?

Well, in the end, we're left watching the ship sail hoping we can get it back. :Eek:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

About 3,500 after the DL acquisition at ASA and CMR, and another 3,500 to 4,000 at the other carriers who were mostly non ALPA. Add in the jobs that appeared, then disappeared (ie ACA), and the number goes to just under 10,000. Clearly mainline growth was lost and mainline careers stagnated. Even D-ALPA agrees on that point. ... and duh ... closing the scope loophole is part of the acquisition. Of course, now I just read Delta's really bad scope language goes back further than I'd have guessed considering Ransome ATR pilots and NorthEast Folker pilots retired from this place.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Didn't you strike over labor protection provisions in 1998, specifically the KLM alliance, Continental code share and small jet flying?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

I can't find it written anywhere that a strike over labor protection provisions is any more restricted than a strike under the RLA already is.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Carl, I agree. However note:

• ALPA's running economic analysis on small jet flying
• ALPA will not commit to holding the line on scope.
• Management is saying too much about the next round of mainline replacement jets being flown at mainline

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Of course it is hoped ALPA will do more. I'd like to see us slide Southwest's Section 1 across the table and negotiate from there. Since that really is more than can be done, I'd like to re-write Section 1 inclusively where we can and sunset as much of the outsourcing as is possible.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Our scope needs to focus on pilots, not airplanes. In almost every case, the simpler approach is better. Southwest's active scope language is just a paragraph long. In the same form, our scope need only state Delta pilots be at the controls of Delta flying.

Originally Posted by Whidbey

Bar- Great post.

I'm sure it's been covered on here, but we should bear in mind the economic backdrop that accompanied the RJ explosion in the nineties. We were on the back side of Desert Storm and the country was flush with cash (and very cheap oil) courtesy of our Saudi friends. The economics of the industry have changed drastically between then and now.

Hopefully the pilot group can hold the line on scope.... but I think the point has been made on here that we don't want to give away the farm with respect to pay and work rules if the company is just using scope threats as a bluff. Is it possible the company knows outsourcing is going to be less and less cost effective, but realizes it would be stupid to admit at risk of losing negotiating capital?

It's always tempting to prepare for the last war, but the next one will quite likely be fundamentally different.

Break break... I for one have appreciated all the ALPA mailers about how to read a balance sheet, etc. FWIW, it's informative for a new guy. However, I can see how that particular mailer could be perceived as a tacit endorsement of the (management) position that pilot pay be largely determined by profitability. The reductio ad absurdum argument is that if the company is losing money, we should be paying them to fly their planes. I'm not trying to criticize or say I know a better way, but I hope we can establish ourselves as more of a fixed cost.

Glad to be here.

Whidbey

Originally Posted by NuGuy

Bar and Carl are also correct that it is MADNESS to assume that we'll get any change of direction from the current leadership. They KNOW that mistakes were made in the langauge of Section 1, but they still don't want anyone watchdogging the most critical part of our contract, and you can bet that anything vomited up at the negotiating table will be hard sold to get %50 +1.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

This is perhaps an appropriate time to remind everyone that 22 years ago the scope line was UNLIMITED 70 seaters. It took 17 years AND bankruptcy to move that line 6 seats, and even then there were restrictions on the number.

I absolutely reject the idea that the MEC has caved repeatedly on Scope. The truth is, neither the NWA pilot group, nor the DAL pilot group was willing to shut the door that has been open forever. And yes, in bankruptcy, the door was opened wider. Bad things happen in bankruptcy.

I am completely confident DALPA will not open the door further, and perhaps may even close it a bit.

Originally Posted by gloopy

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.