From another point of view... I'm MSPM88, and i've been on the road for the past 7 days (8 if you count commute), covering an ATL trip. After 5 reroutes, and an additional 24:09 min in ATL for my required rest, I flew 1 stinking short leg out of ATL, then double DH to get back to base, then I had to spend an extra night before commuting home. How are they apples, eh?

Funny when I look at my MSPM88 peers' sked, there're still a few that has 0 raw score to this date.

 

Do you have any idea how much crap I've taken over the past 5 years because I've been advocating exactly what you said above?

Sorry. That just struck me as funny... and sad. Carry on.

 

I don't know, acl. You hang out with too many 40 year olds. Some of "the pilots" might have another view.
This forum is sometimes too much of an echo chamber. We all like underboob and we hate outsourcing.

Just for fun, let me poke the hornet's nest ---


Most won't say it out loud because its not politically correct among the younger First Officers who post on the Internet, but there are more than a few 50 something year old Captains who definitely don't want to spend a bunch of negotiating capital to try and bring 76 seat jets to the mainline.
Hold the line on scope? --> fine. If the young guys insist. But "recapture" the 70 or 76 seaters? --> No way. That ship has sailed. Bringing Compass and that flying back to mainline was a losing proposition that would have kept us tied in knots for years. Moak cut the chain on that stuck anchor just in time.


Maybe those of us already at the mainline are better off in the long run if we facilitate outsourcing of small gauge flying and just allow the company to continue the bidding wars and whipsaw tactics at DCI.
If RJ pilots want to work for minimum wage, doesn't that subsidize our pay rates?
Isn't it better for us if Delta is more profitable?


And we should be careful saying Section 1 is not for sale.
There are a lot of retirement deadzoners who would be willing to entertain offers.

I'll bet the survey results will be different than the APC conventional wisdom.

(now heading for the bunker)

 

Did they decide on the 66" version? The current size is 61 inches and Boeing was looking hard at 70."

Final 737 re-engine configuration down to four possible fan sizes

The trade off is that large fans make huge thrust when low and slow. At high speed big fans and nacelles are just extra drag. Think A10 and F104 and you get the picture. Here is a toy to play with:

EngineSim 1.7a beta

While reading up on this 737RE, I was a little surprised to read that Slow and Sailing were correct that there was room in the A320NEO schedule to accommodate Delta's needs. Apparently what happened is that Airbus became pretty firm in their prices after the number of orders they received. Boeing on the other hand may have been inspired to offer better discounts.

Overall the 737-900ER may have been the overlooked "ugly duckling" with Swan potential. Part of the reason for the success of the -800 was that its commonality makes it easy to lease and re-lease to another customer. The relative rarity of the -900 will decrease with Delta's order, making the airplane more accepted in the marketplace.

The 737-900ER RE might be just the ticket, with more thrust & better efficiency. If this RE is a nacelle and engine swap, seems like it could be done mid order. The other angle is, with new engines the 737-700 might become the "perfect" 130 to 150 seat jet. We did an order for 200 engines, but since the Leap X is the same manufacturer, an armchair observer would think there is a chance the order could be up-sold.

 

Check,

• Delta's profitability does not directly benefit us. It only benefits us if we do Delta's flying. We desire Delta to be profitable, but it is more important to us that we do the flying.
• It is questionable whether Delta's outsourcing has done Delta any good. I believe a compelling case can be made that Delta's 30 billion dollar RJ effort has been a miserable failure. If the money was in RJ's, Comair would be worth a fortune.
• Whipsaw can not be isolated to just "regional" carriers. Look at NWA's pre merger DC-9 rates and our own small jet rates. Our MD88's are in direct competition with CRJ and ERJ Types for route allocation.
• Scope is far from being just a junior issue. You're right at the spot where anything from E170's flying to UIO to an change in the SkyTeam agreement could effect you.

Most importantly, how much flying can we give up and still be relevant at the bargaining table? 20%, 50%, 70%?

If I went in to the C.P.'s office with a list of demands, I would be laughed at and fired. If YOU, I and the APC Board participants went to the C.P. with the same list, we'd be listened to, there would be some discussions, then we'd be fired. If every Delta pilot set the parking brake until the demands were met, the demands would be complied with nearly instantly.

You know that is how a union works (so, my soapbox isn't aimed at you, but the rest of the readers). As unity erodes, so does our power.

So I ask, which union will get you more off what you want?

1. You by yourself
2. You and me and a couple of dozen others
3. 20% of Delta's pilots
4. 50% of Delta's pilots
5. ALPA, the exclusive bargaining agent for 100% of Delta's pilots

I've no problem with what you have written, in fact your candor is appreciated. From you, your opinion is completely acceptable. My union is held to a different standard. They've got a job to do and unity is at the core of their responsibility.

 

Who could not see this coming.

 

DAL88, I know you have. We have different on the timing and words used. This close to the opening of section six marks a great time to do just that. Doing it two plus years from an opener makes little sense.

Scope, easy.

Pay, after the survey.

 

or 6. Another union, the exclusive bargaining agent for 100% of Delta's pilots, with no conflict of interest representing anyone else and a clearly stated objective for restoration? (And for the record, I'm not talking about DPA per se. Just a union without a conflict of interest and with a clear objective for success. Hey, one can dream right? )

 

Excellent point and post Bar.

To also respond to Check

True to a point, but many are starting to realize that Scope is not just small jets, it is also that 777-300ER and 380 that Air France flies to our two biggest hubs. It is the flying that Alaska does, It is the flying that DCI does, it is the flying that KAL is undercutting in Asia. All of it matters.

As for the 76 seat flying, I will not state that we should or should not get what is out there back. DAL has finacial commitments that I know we would have to be on the hook for. I also agree that most prefer to get a pay raise versus a 76 seat jet they will never fly. What will state we need to do is sunset these agreement so that the limits are lowered as the contracts expire. It is a low/no cost option that lets DAL honor their commitments, gradually return the flying to mainline, and allows our pilots to fly the next get of jets, with no regard to its size. We as a pilot group also need to be economically savvy enough to realize that by outsourcing we allows a dynamic change in the economics of every jet. To have a any effect in reversing that, you need to control the supply It our case that is pilot jobs in jets flown with the DAL and Skyteam code.

The best way to do this is what I outlined above. The Rat jets as many call them are becoming totally obsolete, and they need to be replaced. To date there is not a replacement for those. Now is the time to act and with a sunset agreement, it costs noting because we are not buying flying currently being performed. We are restoring flying after a contract has expired, or has become amendable. As a you know from your legal experience, these types of contracts expire, unlike ours. I have run across the smattering of WB A's that think like you purport, but most know that scope is not for sale. They are also really on board with the idea of a sunset clause. It is something they can and will sign on to.

 

We have been over this and for the sake of brevity all I will state, is ALPA has all of the tools to do what you state. DALPA can and will hold the line on scope, and take it back if this group wants to, all we have to do is tell em. A lot of the conflict resides in the pilot group. Of course we all want our pay back, but at the cost of what is where some of that falls apart. Who is representing does not matter as much as the resolve. If DPA or the like represented the pilots' wishes they may in fact arrive as the same results.