Not sure what to think about it. Maybe it's tin foil hat-ish of me but what I read between the lines could very easily be interpreted as more large RJ's as long as the total ratio swings more in our favor. But that's happening anyway with 50's being parked as well as Saabs, etc. we could allow 9 76 seaters for every 10 50 seaters parked and that would fulfill that "production balance" talking point 100%.

Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain.

I really hope we aren't about to fall for that.

I've heard of Butt dialing, but never before heard of butt APC posting! :D

Cool, thanks iaf, beats going back 100 pages.

I suspect they'll frame the discussion about Scope in terms of the complete package. IOW, they'll tighten a bunch of things, from 50-seaters to WB, and offer some concessions on some 76 seaters.

That's how I've been reading the lines on posts from people like Shiznit.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and there is something there. On the one hand, we have them by the short-hairs over limits on 70/76-seaters. And 50-seaters are going away, one way or another. On the other hand, they can easily play with the awful 3:1 ratio, especially since there is no language to protect us from a short surge (add 717's, then subtract DC-9's) above the limit (767 mainline, I think). I also don't know how long they're going to hate 50-seaters. I suspect they're gone, same for turboprops, but can't guarantee it. And I'm also thinking a lot of the Scope battle is happening on the large-gauge end.

I'm open to looking at Section 1 as a package. If we could get a much lower hard cap on the total number of RJ's, a minimum (and improved) ratio of block hours between us and the regionals, eliminate the [bleep] 3:1 ratio, eliminate the add-and-subtract loophole, get strong % in JV's, and future JV's, I would keep an open mind.

I know that's not using the right slogans, but if the net result is much better Scope overall, I'd consider much better overall to be much better ovreall. If not, and we trade Section in general for Section 3 in general, we deserve whatever we get later (and we'll sure get it).

I too am confused by the tone of it. The 1st time I read it, it seemed upbeat and positive.... As I read it a 2nd and 3rd time it got considerably more threatening and coersive. If the negotiating team is listening, PLEASE don't give away any more Delta pilot jobs for ANY reason. Speaking as a junior guy at the bottom of the list, I'd much prefer reserve and stagnation until retirements start shortly, than to release one more aircraft, seat, or pound to the regionals. We've made it this far, I can hold on a little longer!

Back to lurking.

Vol

The 3:1 check valve, while asinine, still doesn't allow an increase above 255 70-76 seaters. All it does is allow 70's to be parked and exchanged for 76 seaters but it still has to comply with the 255 limit even if mainline grew by a thousand planes (as if).

There is zero reason to allow more large RJ's. I doubt the company is itching to park 70s just to convert then to 76ers anyway. They want more 76ers and an increase to the 255 cap. No deal. They already have an unlimited amount of 76ers they can fly. Right here at their own airline.

It's quite obvious that ALPA is going to try and paint a further scope sale as good by painting it with the "ratio" brush. To me it shows just how powerless ALPA is. Even with the company making money hand over fist they still find a way to sell delta jobs. Unreal.... So if this is what we get when times are good I shutter to think what happens during tougher times. What are we gonna do.....outsource the 737's and 757's next because the 76-100 seater's can no longer make money? Oh wait.... Not enough will be outsourced to effect the "ratio". So it's all good.

If what I'm reading is true we need MUCH smarter negotiators at the table. If they can't see where this is headed they need to be removed.

Before the argument starts, my post above is not meant to endorse this sort of trade. I'd consider the package, but the numbers you describe are obscene. I agree they could fit between the lines, but so could a handful of airplanes. I'd have to see numbers.

We need to vote for whatever meets our own individual requirements. I hope you're right, and this thing isn't marketed that way. I hope it's not marketed at all. We all understand TVM, but we also know that you can't maintain any dignity or credibility if you always yield to fear.

Just got the email from Tim Omally. Very interesting read. Sounds very positive.

I don't have the language in front of me, but I think the problem with the existing langauge is that it doesn't require reductions in the number of large RJ's once the number is established, and mainline shrinks. So it's simple: you order a bunch of 737-900's, or 717's, or whatever, pump up your number, sign the contracts for the 3:1, then pull back the Dc-9's.

That's the problem we have.