And under the current language, how is that.. other than the increase allowed when mainline exceeds 767 airframes? (And I have stated over and over that THAT is retarded language)

 

They could, but as I read it, it was a direct answer to a rumor.

 

What they deliberately fail to mention is that the Company is already at the 255 jet limit. This is the number the Company wants (needs) raised.I can guarantee you Delta is not going to agree to a reduction to 200 aircraft. That's 1.6 Billion Dollars in nearly new RJ's that would have to be parked without another apparent operator to instantly take up the payments. But for the purpose of your example, lets run with it.

76 to 80 seats would on the surface appear to be just a 5% increase in revenue. Look beyond that to CASM and you see that the Next Gen CRJ would then have a CASM lower than just about any narrow body jet currently in Delta service. You would be allowing management equipment that would ensure Delta pilots were the Company's last choice when awarding flying. Worst off all, your proposal would be re-defining what a Delta pilot is and drawing the circle every smaller ... you would, by definition, be reducing what Delta pilots fly.

Further, your proposal would be further endorsing a program of outsourcing to non union, alter ego, replacement pilots, the likes of the Teamsters at GoJets and at union hating SkyWest. Your proposal would also continue with the dilution of Delta pilot negotiating leverage since other pilots would be performing what had been defined as "mainline" flying.

If such a proposal were proffered, I would vote no, encourage everyone to vote no, and preemptively retain defense Counsel.

 

I didn't do that to mischaracterize anything you said, because I understood you were making a general point. My response is also generally based on two principles: First is that anytime we agree to more outsourcing (no matter what the quid), we set a terrible legal precedent if/when we have to fight management in arbitration when they go after our language. Second is that management can't be trusted to maintain whatever quid we get for allowing more outsourcing.

I understand that t, I really do. The problem is that when it comes to scope, there is no such thing as a "small point" to concede. Scope is not like any other section where I could agree with your thesis. Allowing more outsourcing has had terrible ramifications for us...most of them NOT predicted by our bargaining agent or many of the rank and file.

If we achieve what you call a mantra, it's a loss. We have to REVERSE the outsourcing of our jobs. Even if it's a small reversal with a clear path to more reversing, we have to reverse the trajectory. Doing anything else is what will (and has) painted us into a corner.

Carl

 

Good grief people, you are picking apart my numbers as if it were some sort of legitimate proposal. I am talking in conceptual ideas here to illustrate a point of something that might be acceptable while doing what some would call a concession on scope. "Not one more seat, inch or pound" is NOT a negotiating strategy, because it is unrealistic. IMHO. I'm done with this.

 

They could say "we demand as one of our highest priorities a significant reduction in the Alaska code share abuse and significantly fewer outsourced aircraft at DCI, particularly the larger RJ's."

That is vague and conceptual and leaves a lot of room at the bargaining table. It merely points to the direction we intend on going. Just like for pay. We didn't say exactly what percentage we were after, but we did say we wanted significant increases in pay. Ditto for many other sections. But when it comes to scope we deviate from that and invent murky constructs like "production balances" which could mean worse scope and more large RJ's depending on how its defined at the moment.

 

I don't understand how, after all the negative results from our previous scope sales, and how management has so far exploited every loophole in our "ironclad" contract (in some cases, even assisted by DALPA), any further scope relaxation from here out can possibly be open for discussion.

Am I willing to stretch this process out over 3 years over a minor pay deficiency in the TA? No.

Am I willing to strike over just one more 76 seater flown by DCI? ABSOLUTELY.

I am a "single issue voter" on scope.

 

Thanks ... that is the effect we hope to have on our Reps should they ever vote to send something like that to the pilots. Thanks for the target practice. George said my shelling was off last time.

 

I get what you're saying, as most others probably do. To make your point a little clearer, may I take it one step farther?

** Hypothetically ** We allow the company to outsource one 77 seat aircraft, but every other RJ must immediately be parked on signing (or brought to mainline). We relaxed our seat limit (by 1, for one airframe), but significantly tightened up narrowbody scope overall. In that case, I think most guys would consider it a win.

The heartburn that everyone feels here, myself included, is by simply making the hypothetical trade above, we have continued to concede that scope is negotiable. What most guys desperately want to hear is that:

1. We are sick of this outsourcing experiment
2. We are tied to the long-term viability of Delta and have a very real interest in the brand (arguably more than any mgmt team ever will)
3. Delta pilots will fly Delta passengers


My major concern is that once this stagnation period ends around 2017, that guys will be riding high on retirement advancement and being concerned about scope will fall out of fashion. Of course that will only work until the music stops again, and we're all stuck in whatever seat we end up in (kinda like now). My point is NOW is the time to reverse the scope damage that's been done. We are negotiating with a profitable company, and there really won't be a better time to get this done.

I agree with you that everything is negotiable, but unless it involves some serious tightening of scope, I'm not interested. Call me a 1 issue voter if you want, but this is too important to put off until later.

 

Thank goodness we have 12,000 pilots, and the hot heads only make up the 2 std deviation part of the curve. Way to take my quote out of context by the way. I'll return the favor sometime.