Great letter. I only fear it cuts through the fog a little too much, and ruins much of the discussion. It's not quite like getting the ending to the book, but it's like getting good cliffnotes for the first 2/3 rds.

100,000 posts is within our grasp. Let's ignore this letter, and speculate some more.

 

For anyone curious, all LEC reps email addresses and phone numbers are easily found after logging into the "Members Only" portal @ "www.alpa.org"

Would anyone be willing to post or PM me an outline of key points (or exact wording) they recently reiterated with their LEC reps? It seems I hit send and always feel I left out something. The last thing I want to convey to my reps is that I "must be OK with [fill in the blank]" since I didn't address the issue.

Junior guys: our votes and input count just as much as anyone else's. Take the time to let your reps know your concerns!

Thanks to any and all in advance!

 

Amen! I love DTW reps! I couldn't have said it better.

 

I was most impressed too. Good letter, and they are stating the obvious; They are doing their due diligence.

 

GJ,

The answer to your question is simple - Scope improvements will all come via tradeoffs within section 1. Theoretically, Scope will not be sourced as a "bill payer" to fund other contractual improvements. When you consider that Scope covers DCI, Joint Ventures, Code-sharing, alliances and whatever other term you can think of to describe what it actually is........... Outsourcing, it becomes easier to visualize.

So saying Scope will stand on its own does not mean we will hold the line at 255 large RJs at all, it means if you consider all of section 1, it will be improved.

Say for example (hypothetical numbers) that Delta Pilots currently fly 55% of the passengers who buy a Delta ticket. If under the new TA we increase that to 60% or 65% we have improved Scope. Here is the catch, our current Scope is so bad that we can easily allow 50 more large RJs and still improve our Scope.

Scope is my number 1 issue for this TA - without Scope improved payrates hardly make up for an extended stay in the right seat. I am against any more large RJs but that is not the only weakness in our section 1.

The problem is not that we will be selling Scope - Scope has already been taken/sold/traded etc, depending on your interpretation of the last 10 years. Currently our Scope sucks. I hate the fact that while I was furloughed DCI was hiring by the hundreds, but all aspects of section 1 are equally important - what good would recapturing 76 Scope do if we double our code shares and JVs?

I want growth and hiring at Delta. If the best way to do that is tradeoffs within section 1 than so be it.

Finally, my interpretation of "Scope must stand on its own" means that we will not be trading Scope for something other than Scope - say higher pay-rates for example. The problem with this is how do we, the line pilots know what was traded for what, and how things were actually costed behind closed doors etc. I guess we have to trust our Negotiating Commitee and I have no reason not to.

Scoop

 

Scoop, good post, and is brutally honest.

 

Scoop,

Thank you for the explanation. I'm also not willing to vote "yes" on something that gives us a recurring "lost decade" or further degradation of this profession. (The two could easily be seen as synonymous.)

RE: Spirit Thread. Thanks for your 26+ years of service. I just cleared 21, and leave for Afghanistan at the end of this month.

Fly safe,

GJ

 

2nd year UPS pay is $150,000.

 

And there it is. Lets not do that again. Btw, thanks for your service!

 

One way to look at the "scope must stand on it's own comment is", I don't care what you offer in Section 3 to get me to move on Section 1. Or Section 2, 4, 5, 6,...

Section 3 doesn't matter if I lose my job.