Fly4hire

Dude, your analysis is correct, except for the fact it was giving away your and my flying for $15 million to help someone else's ____ (fill in the blank).

Its easy to spend someone else's money, and then claim it's too expensive to buy back when you never had any intention to to begin with.

Bucking Bar

Fly - Yep. They claim it is "too expensive" yet they will not analyze what is costs, or conversely, what it is worth. They don't want to know.

I deleted most of my post in deference to Sailing Fun, but it was about the fact that we sell flying for much much less than it is worth to the pilots who perform that flying. Facts cited were:
* The credited concessions to create Compass were cited as worth .0125 of the purchase price, and
* ALPA's repeated statements that crew costs do not make up a significant portion of operating costs

Fly4hire

Damn straight. I think there was a resolution at the last MEC meeting addressing analyzing costs - it was shot down.

MD80

The Midwest pilots wanted to talk to DALPA. Answer: Get lost.

The Midwest pilots warned DALPA of a 100 seat plan. Answer: Get Lost.

DALPA has been playing with your scope language too much. You may have lost the 100-130 seat market by signing the 47% Partnership LOA with Midwest(TPG). Someone is keeping Midwest going... contracting with Republic, selling MD80's and B717, leasing E-190AR (range 2400nm), negotiating new labor contracts, adding code share agreements, sharing gates, ... all in one years time. Do you think TPG (owner of Burger King, Harrod's, XO Jets, J Crew,...) bought into this deal to run the old Midwest.

Delta has your approval to grow a separate "Low Cost" carrier to compete with AirTran and Southwest. A "Low Cost" carrier to feed the Delta system.

Bucking Bar

MD80:

Your historical accuracy is going to be fact checked quickly by your adversaries. MidWest warned NWA ALPA, not D-ALPA. Do you have any indication (better yet, proof) that D_ALPA ever entered into discussions with your group?

The irony is that your group voted against ASA and Comair when they brought the same issue to the ALPA BOD. Why do you expect the NWA, or Delta, MECs to intervene and follow a policy different than your own MEC's track record?

As far as I know, a "Delta" ticket can not be sold on MidWest. A MidWest ticket can be sold on Delta. The one way nature of this check valve is supposed to prevent the scenario you describe. I checked on Delta.com and Orbitz and best I can tell, this "feature" works as advertised.

Still every airline pilot and ALPA member should be learning from MidWest's cautionary tale, I grant you that.

slowplay

You are now so desperate that you have to invent windmills at which to tilt?

Sad.

Tomcat

Slowplay,

You're pretty good at shooting everyone down on this forum, and I may have miss it while I was gone for a few days, but what is your opinion on the overall issue. What do you think we should do as a pilot group, if anything? I truly want to know your opinion on the 90-130 seat aircraft. You may be able to add an insight that some of us just don't see. Thanks.

TC

slowplay

I don't think we have to do anything, at least not until 2012.

Section 1 limits the size of the aircraft that can be subcontracted and not flown by Delta pilots while carrying Delta passengers. When a certain subcontactor management attempted to raise the weight of one of their aircraft beyond those limits they got a rather forceful phonecall from Delta. The weight modification didn't take place. There are limits on the total number of 70-76 seaters, with the allowed number of new 76 seaters in that total limit pegged to mainline growth.

The total number of DCI airframes is shrinking, and at a much faster rate than mainline. DCI has pilots on furlough. Nobody at mainline has been involuntarily furloughed.

Delta has over 120 90-130 seat aircraft on property (DC-9, 737-700, A319) with a few new ones on order.

Unless opportunities present themselves to address this earlier, in contract 2012 we need to examine what can be done to bring the 76 seat flying back to mainline.

We don't need to beat up on each other over decisions made in the past unless there is a path to change them in the present. And we definitely don't need to tilt at any windmills.

jmo, and my wife says I'm usually wrong.

Tomcat

Well Slowplay, we're not that far apart. I will say that 2012 is just around the corner. Seems like just yesterday we were celebrating the millennium. I just want to make it very clear to our union that we just can't slide on this, period. There is no wiggle room. The population of our pilot group has changed drastically over the last 5 years. It's a different pilot group now. I'm not sure about NWA, but for the Delta guys, we have 2 groups ('91 & 2000-2001) that have been through a furlough and the 2000-2001 group saw the loss of flying while we were gone (Scope). So for some of us, this is a hot-button issue.

Putting emotions and feelings aside on this, the only way we can be successful moving forword in to have a business case for this flying and to stand shoulder to shoulder after the debate and discussion.

Finally, not only does my wife tell me frequently that I'm wrong, but because of her skills as a Federal Agent, she frequently has me convinced I'm wrong.

Keep the dialogue coming.

V/R, TC

MD80

I agree with you that DALPA would not take a meeting with the Midwest MEC.

I agree with you that it is a one way code share. But if you were Delta management would you want to direct your internet customers to your "Low Cost" airline... No. On the other hand, you may want to direct your "Low Cost" carrier customers to your main line aircraft.

We will see what the future brings. One thing we know is DALPA has to stop dragging our profession down by selling out scope language fought for years ago.