Just make sure you don't draw attention politically and then take one of those babies off the airplane: YOUR FIRED! Eat it on the flight deck.

I think we should make an effort so that when our pax are queried regarding the Twix bars, their only reply is "what Twix bars?"

The key change in Delta scope was the weight increase in LOA 46 that allowed the E170/175 at the mainline. This occurred prior to Chapter 11 but under a threat of a filing. I always thought the entire argument over allowing the 6 extra seats somewhat strange. We should scope airframes and capability not seats. If we allow them to operate the airframe we should allow it to be operated to generate the maximum revenue and feed.
Had the issue of 76 seats vs 70 seats been decided in the 1113 motion we would have lost completely. The court would have never have placed a economic restriction on operation of a airframe when the airline was struggling to survive. The weight change occurred prior to Lee Moaks administration. It was a huge mistake and will take many years to unwind if ever. The jets started showing up within months of the weight increase. I believe this was in 2005. A second weight increase was granted in the joint contract to allow the 36 ER 175's operated by Compass.

I just find it a little ironic the ragging on CPZ, when the flow that came with it represents the only significant furlough protection we have at DAL. It's probably the only reason a few of it's detractors here are still employed :eek:

After the Avro's were parked, 50 seaters were the largest acft - CPZ was credit for the previous Avro's + 36 additional 76'ers'. And what protection/flow was negotiated with DAL's previous 76 seaters, BK or otherwise? :o At least the fNWA got something for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first Scope tied furlough protection you got was with the merger?

Of course if all the 76 seaters were flown at mainline we wouldn't need the furlough protection......:mad:

Just a small point. I think the Mesaba 76 seat CRJs were the Avro replacements and the CPZ jets were what we got in bankruptcy.

I agree with everything else you say!

Ferd

This quote is close, but not complete. You wouldn't need the flow. As long as any mainline flying is outsourced you need furlough protection.

As Ferd pointed out, your timeline on the RJ85's isn't quite correct. Delta did have a no furlough clause that protected anyone hired prior to September, 2001. Our previous no-furlough clause was arbitrated twice. We lost the first one post September 11 (FM1, 1060 pilots), but won the second one (FMII, 250 pilots). The LOA 51 no-furlough clause required seat removal to 70 seats should management furlough any pilot on the property at date of signing, and tied 76 seat jets to mainline growth.

After NWA I believe.

Great discussion from all. Sometimes you need a quick look in the review mirror to see where you been before you look ahead to see where you're going.

Now, looking forward, any constructive ideas about how or if we will be able to hold on to the 90-130 seat market within mainline going into our next contract?

No, the 76 seat jet were the ones allowed during 1113C. The limit just went up to add the CPS jets during the JPWA.

IMHO it is ours to give up. Enough IBB. We do not need to decide how the pile is split up. The have been taking parts of the pile away for a long time. It is high time they start adding to that pile.

OK, if your point is "whipsaw" I sure agree. You are spot on about whipsaw and agree it is necessary to capture the type, if not the entire category of flying. I think we could capture the E-Jet easily, but probably not the CRJ at any cost. The conversation get hugely speculative from there and it is pointless since our MEC has resolved not to even evaluate the options. I'll shut up about it.

Sailing, instead of "scope chicken" how about Scope Trunk Monkey?

Your sweat equity in this airline is respected. My hope is that somehow guys like you and guys like me get on the same page.