Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1046024)

FTB,

Bill Swelbar has my respect, although he lags many of us by six months to a year in his published findings. Bill Swelbar was one of the first "authoritative" sources who documented ALPA's involvement in the selling of scope (bargaining capitol). At that time such a statement was highly controversial (yet true & I had been making that point based on ALPA's own publications for years).

Back then (early 2010) Bill's opinion was that unions had learned their lesson and would not repeat the errors of the earlier decade. I (for one) wrote him, saying that while I hoped he was correct, several of his own data points were not in agreement with his own conclusions:

ALPA's politics have not changed. The union members maintain an obsolete view of mainline flying which was the product of vastly different revenue and cost structures.
To maintain a pre-deregulation fantasy career, ALPA has systematically sold off assets which harm its ability to negotiate future contracts. The greatest, of course, is scope.
If Bill needed an example, he need look no further than the Delta MEC's handling of Compass.
Economically, a "just say no" platform was not viable as a result of the effect of other stakeholders who would assert their interests.

Now Swelbar sounds as if he has been enjoying meals with Lee Moak.

Bill's mistake now, is that he assumes outsourcing is necessary to operate a small jet at reasonable cost. He also assumes that ALPA remains intransigent on small jet operating numbers. ALPA will also need to embrace other stakeholders as a matter of economic pragmatism. (pilots operating across certificates using one seniority number)

I think this is a great post Bar.

Now just to discuss 2 things:

1. Do we know the total cost to operate a jet as DCI versus having that jet operated at mainline? Say a E175 or CRJ900. When you take into account all of the overhead expenses at DCI compared to what they'd be if insourced at Delta?

2. 10 or 20 years down the line, where are we in this industry if the trend lines with scope and the mainline as well as airlines providing outsourced flying stay the same?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1046049)

Please don't tell me you're getting sensitive!:(

Oh no, not sensitive. Curious.

It'd be new ground on this forum to go into. I don't think it's ever been done or even hinted at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1046047)

Agreed! Something about an "I've got mine" attitude.

I agree. :cool:

And I bet there is a ph.d. in the works. I seriously doubt MIT wants to have a non ph.d. rolling around and I think for many colleges you're not up for tenure unless you are ph.d. or published a lot. He's done the later for sure but this is MIT.

Common ground! Means lunch time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1046038)

Bar,

We've plowed this ground repeatedly and you know my opinion. The Compass structure was set up to fail. The MEC made the call to ensure Compass had adequate representation in the event they were spun off. With the benefit of hindsight it's my view that the call was the correct one.

I understand you disagree. In all our discussions I don't recall you ever acknowledging that the representational structure would not prevent a sale of the CPZ certificate, that the structure was flawed, and there was no methodology to force management to add the CPZ pilots to our seniority list. Even then, there was no way to compel management to modify our scope as it pertained to 76 seat jets.

You seem to agree the change in representational structure helped to facilitate the sale of Compass. My point was that is easier to sell someone else' kids than your own. On the facts, I think we agree.

If anyone is serious about scope recovery, then they have to admit, severing ties with Compass was an error. Do you want Delta pilots to operate 70 through 122 seat jets? That is the Type Compass operates.

Opportunities to "compel" Delta management to operate Compass at mainline and correspondingly reduce "permitted" aircraft to have a net zero change in small jet operations:

The joint pilot working agreement
Scope grievance settlement
Furlough and flow down exploratory talks
Contract 2012

... and don't think I'm universally anti-Moak. To the contrary, he did an excellent job during the US Air threat, he did an excellent job with our merger and his track record on mid cycle contract improvements is outstanding. He's in the President's Office because he did a good job. I do disagree with his thoughts on scope. But in balance, he's done real well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1046055)

You seem to agree the change in representational structure helped to facilitate the sale of Compass.

I don't agree at all.

Asset sales have happened at union represented airlines all over the US. Unless a fragmentation trigger was reached (generally 15% of revenue or 20% of operations) most had no input from the bargaining agent.

CPZ was an asset sale. No fragmentation trigger would have been breached. The sale of CPZ was not facilitated by the representation structure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1046050)

1. I think we do. But it always changes and is confidential.

2. "Mainline" as defined by Delta seniority list pilots would be extinct if the specifics of your question were to be extrapolated as you state.

Slow,

What Bar said ref Compass.

I had trip with our exLAX LEC rep/hotel committe guy. Had a long discussion on this issue and we never did get a meeting of the minds as his main point (as I understood him) was that it was a conflict of interest to have them represented the way they were. I guess it's always going to be a slightly religious issues with me as it goes back to my voting NO on the bankruptcy contract (what started the discussion with MA) as I said no NewCo (Compass) and I ment it. After having it stuck up my arse, I expected us to take Compass back at the earliest opportunity. I thought the merger was that opportunity, but you guys didn't agree (straight party line vote).

Anyway, water under the bridge. But, I continue to think we made a mistake.

Ferd

PS MA is a great guy and I enjoyed flying with him. I also gained a great deal of understanding of how DALPA operates and almost volunteered to be on the hotel committee...ALMOST:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1046056)

The sale of CPZ was not facilitated by the representation structure.

So, you are saying we simply made it easier on ourselves?

Ferd,

Again, we see saw our MEC creating a "conflict of interest." It is no wonder the DPA has built its platform on "conflict of interest." Our MEC handed them the lumber and the nails.

The best fix for a "conflict of interest" is unity. When you are ONE, there is no one else to conflict with.

Yours is an excellent post. The NWA screwed up with the creation of the off seniority list group, but they at least left a bridge to pull them across later. My MEC blew the bridge.

Have followed Swellbar for a few years. He's a buddy of Glenn Tilton's. Where general industry analysis is concerned he's alright, but anytime he talks labor he's a one-note hack: those darn pilots make too much money and they're only hurting themselves with their fat contracts and they'd all be better off if they agreed to everything their companies want. I'd pay less attention to his labor "analysis" than Richard Anderson's.

Richard does not publish that sort of thing ... and when he does name drop "mainline" 16 times in a request for proposal, it is obviously with intent.