Folks, ACL65 showed you were the smoke screen could likely be generated from. Make sure you "get" this post. The Company is currently hard limited to 255 total large (70 or 76 seat) RJ's. If they get a 76 seater, they have to park a nearly new 70 seater. That's a $1.8 billion dollar problem for Delta Air Lines and a "opportunity" for ALPA. It is leverage. ACL explains how this will be spun as "allowing additional 70 seaters" when in reality, it is allowing additional 76 seaters without the penalty of having to pull other RJ's out of service. Figure the total large RJ fleet size goes to 315'ish under this scenario (?? on mergers and other impossible to quantify extrapolations).

 

Pilot mainline block hours, perhaps more than any other metric, are a direct measure of Delta pilot jobs

This statement from his letter I have the most problem with. NO!!!! mainline jobs are the metric that matter most in mainline jobs and why are we not ratioing that.
Why cant we say the number of F(*(& RJ is tied directly to the following.
1. total mainline pilots
2. mainline captain spots
3. mainline INTL widebody captain spots

It seems easy to me. 200 RJs equals 12500 pilots, 6000 captain spots 3000 widebody captain spots.

Also I want this agreement to have one important factor. THE pilot gains come first and then the company gains. If the company wants to exchange 50 for 70 seater. (which I diagree with). the first off the pilots get their raise and their mainline planes, and after everything we have negotiated is given to us THEN the company gets what they want. too many times we give it up first and that sets precedent to get us screwed.

 

Ok Bar now add this in with code share, JV, holding company and transnational protection that we currently do not have and indicated we wanted in the opener. Add a hard cap on the number of DCI jets. Not sure where 315 comes from but lets say that is the hard cap. That cuts DCI by 50%. How does that whole section one sit with you, even if they tie 76 set flying to mainline block hrs and 70 seat(actually66) are effectively a giveme but part of the total hull count?

I am just curious.

 

I really like the cleverness of this strategic thought/scenario, but nothing this clever will be in the TA. The TA will include a straight up unambiguous allowance of more 76 outsourcing...but it will be tied to mainline growth or shrinkage. That's a certainty.

There might even be allowances for 88 seat type aircraft outsourcing as long as we get x number of 777's, space shuttles, etc. But I can't say I'd bet money on that.

Carl

 

Don't have a whole letter, but a buddy just cc'd me his letter to the DTW reps. It had this sentence: "We lose our souls as trade unionists if we rationalize the outsourcing of even ONE MORE of OUR jobs."

Couldn't agree more.

Carl

 

Fixed your post.

Carl

 

We could do:

Whereas, no more outsourcing.

 

ACL, understand that you and I do not measure with the same metric. My question, and ALPA's question, should first be:

• Does this action unify Delta flying under the control of the bargaining agent for the Delta pilots?

 

Contract 2000 contained limits which were designed to be economic inducements to operate mainline jets:

• Limit planned Delta Connection Block hours as a percentage of System Block Hours.
  
• Limiting stage length
• Limiting hub bypass flying
• Limit flying between hubs
• (and no domestic code share, btw)

I've got to re check some old notes on another computer, but my recall is that the block hour limits were re-set within six months of the ratification of contract 2000. By the time serious concessionary negotiations were happening in 2003 - 2004, those limits were already gone by mutual consent.

The point being, you and I and the Company all have the same economic interest in seeing the Golden Goose live another day. Choking off the Goose's feed when times are rough hurts us as bad (or worse) than it does the Company.

Therefore - we should not build scope limits that will fail under economic duress, because that is precisely when we need these job protection provisions.

Based on economic fact, my argument is that we are foolish to accept the growth of the mainline fleet if more efficient new aircraft are allowed to be outsourced. In any event that causes contraction (plague, terrorism, merger, oil shock, war, etc ...) the economic force will strongly incentive the parking of the mainline fleet while maintaining the smaller, more efficient, capacity that has been outsourced.

The best, and only safe, scope is Delta pilots perform Delta flying, irregardless of the size of the airplane. Any divide what so ever is a flaw, a weak point, the point where the thing will fail to serve its intended purpose of providing job protection and career growth for Delta pilots.

 

You couldn't be more wrong.