I have made it crystal clear that I think their RJ 'need' is a throwaway item. But ya'll are getting... again... wrapped all up in something that is going away, and are willing to pay dearly (to use the term time value of concessions) to prevent something that will die on it's own accord. We did it before, and we'll do it again.

And nothing is forever in this business.

I would also get a speed restriction in your section one as there are two 44 seat supersonic passenger jets in development, one is funded by Airbus, and due out in less than 5 years.

We will have to disagree here. I trust the wisdom of the Pilot group. Did you completely forget about the smack down the MEC received after trying to pull off exactly what you say above?

The days of the MEC/NC putting out one sided information are clearly over. They are committed to a Pro/Con paper and as we have seen last year even if they don't there will plenty of Pro/Con thoughts out via social media.

A good deal will pass and sell itself. A crap deal will go down in flames (again) no matter how hard it is sold.

Scoop

Edit: I said "The days of the MEC/NC putting out one sided information are clearly over." I just viewed the UPS- DAL comparison on the DALPA site, I now retract that statement. Apparently the MEC does not seem to learn from past mistakes.

And yet, despite "better" scope clauses, the Fokker100s and DC-9s are gone anyway. Did RJs at DAL cause that, or economics?

UAL and AA pilots have done great things, and also not so great things over the years in terms of "holding the line" and all that.

First of all you are preaching to the choir. As I said I was furloughed along with 1310 other DAL Pilots, in my opinion, as a direct result of a very poor Scope clause.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "my generation." Scope was a failure before I was hired and got worse real quickly. I lived through a wasted decade and was furloughed due to selling out scope when guys were on the street, DCI was hiring thousands, and DAL was parking mainline jets right and left. Excuse me if I don't see more 76 seaters as a crisis now when everything is 180 out from the last decade. The scope line is firmly drawn and the 100 seat jets are going to mainline. We held the line at 76 seats. Small Jet scope is the last war - JVs and Codeshares are the 800 lb gorilla now.

We have a different opinion of improving small jet scope. In my opinion if we fly a greater number of passengers via mainline and less via DCI we are improving Scope.
I voted yes on C-2012 and think that was a Scope win. We are hiring as quick as we can and new guys are achieving upgrades in times unheard of with "my generation" of hires.


Furthermore you say:

That can change in the blink of an eye! Remember the financial crisis of 2008 and age 65?


Well now this sounds exactly like the argument the MEC was using in trying to sell the POS TA-15. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD) - remember? We better approve the TA because things could get worse.

Finally if this did happen and we were still negotiating do you think we would have more or less leverage?

Scoop

Interesting opinion....the reason why I started this thread is that things have changed immensely from just a year ago in the regional world and this new contract will probably have more of an effect on that change (for better or for worse remains to be seen). I have talked to guys at my regional (9E) that want the C-series here. They are obviously older and want the job security. Us younger guys want more to be brought in-house because it hopefully means more better paying mainline jobs. Either way it is a very interesting time in this industry...

Scope clauses are read as permitted flying, the longer it gets, the worse it gets. The strongest section one that could ever be achieved is a blank one.

Scope is everything.

Why is it that no negotiating capital is being spent on tightening scope? Why must the position be "can't budge"?

Why not make ATL budge and recapture that scope? It's like running a race and shooting to finish second.

It's the same mistakes over and over at our mainline carriers. Forgetting scope to capture the highest hourly rates for bragging rights. What am I missing?

Complicating the issue, is the fact that some of the regionals actually own a piece of Delta's market share. If they give that flying up, it goes back to the government for re-bid, thus due to anti-trust, Delta potentially loses that market share forever. Those gates owned by Skywest in ATL are a big deal, you could move a whole new airline in there with that number of gates.

I think that the C-series/up gauging strategy would naturally bring more of the flying in house. IIRC every year since 2012? The % of DCI flights has gone down.

Smittey,

It depends how you look at it. I would prefer a Scope clause of 1 line: Delta passengers are to be flown exclusively by Delta Pilots. But the fact is that Scope was screwed up over 2 decades ago and has fluctuated from bad to worse to much worse to getting better.

There is no way to turn back the clock and undo past mistakes. We are trying to fix scope but I doubt we can fix it all at once.

Look at C-2012 Scope. Many said it was a Scope failure. I thought it was an improvement, not great, but a step in the right direction - reducing the DCI footprint and increasing Delta mainline.

But it does not matter what anyone thinks - what matters is what happened.

Hiring has increased at mainline - this is why we have Scope, to protect jobs, It is now working, for over a decade it didn't work.
DCI is gradually being reduced - hopefully it will eventually all be absorbed into mainline but this will be a gradual and drawn out process.

We do not have to speculate - we have results. I have not seen the Scope AIP but I hear more 76 seaters are probably coming. To me this is not good but not an automatic No vote. If we get the right deal I can hold my nose and tolerate some more 76 seaters.

One of the past mistakes that we did repeat was a moving line from 50 to 70 to 76 seats allowed. All while over a thousand DAL Pilots were furloughed. Now we have the C series and the scope is hopefully going to be held at 76 seats forever. To me this is good news. I don't remember exactly when we caved at 76 seats maybe in 2004 or 2005? So that would be over 10 years and three contracts that we held the line at 76 seats.

Yes it sucks to have more 76 seaters but we will have less overall RJs, a higher percentage of our passengers flying mainline vs DCI, and more and more DCI Pilots moving rapidly to Delta - If the deal is right I can live with it.

Finally, most of us, me included, will have to see the deal in its entirety before passing judgement. I am simply not willing to say that more 76 seaters is an automatic no vote. I respect those of you that feel that way but realize that with 13,000+ Pilot there are probably 13,000+ opinions.

Scoop

They may want it, lucky for you its not going to happen. 9E may end up with more 76 seat aircraft but the Cseries isn't happening.

That's actually a weak scope contract, the reason is labor law, and the RLA doesn't prohibit codeshare. That's why you have RJ's painted in Delta paint, to strike a contract with management in the late 80's/early 90's over code share protections to protect the high paying jobs. That was one issue, however, many more RJ's were later sold to protect the pension fund, then later to lessen bankruptcy pay cuts. Now today the market is pushing flying back to mainline on its own, yet pilots are for some reason paying for it. That's a bad deal, horrible actually, the only explanation is the unions are horribly corrupt.

Yup. I made my comments after watching the same. My worry is that people will drop their guard BELIEVING the bias has been removed since TA1. The best thing the UPS comparison video might offer is a warning that MEC info is still coming from a tainted well.

That's the way I see it (highlighted above). Most of what Scoop posts on APC is spot on but I have to disagree with him on the cause and effect of C2012 and current RJ flying coming to mainline. If, as Scoop says, more large RJs are coming in the form of increased limits in the PWA, that is leverage and we should exploit it to the max extent possible.

I heard they are probably coming. I would rather not have them come but it will probably not be a deal breaker for me unless it is egregious.

As far as leverage I agree 100% and hope that we do exploit it. I have no idea how I am going to vote and will not know until I see the whole deal. If we roll over again a la TA-15 its a slam dunk no-brainer.

Scoop

I don't think its a throwaway item at all. I think they think our MEC/NC is desperate for a deal (checked only by what they think is ratifiable, which I think is well below what really is but I digress) and they are confident we will help bail them out of their RJ mess, again, by breathing more life into the model. Being able to fly 50% more pax per whatever number of RJ pilots they can keep getting/keeping while 'reducing' the planes they don't want and can't staff anyway was probably (re)agreed by gentleman's handshake within hours of POSTA1.0 going down.

Sorry Scoop....
 

I usually agree with you, but I'm going to pile on here:

here's what I got form one of the reps:

the company's proposal is to add 50..... 76/70 seat jets. They will park all the 50 seaters resulting in a net hull loss of 75 aircraft. They also have offered to tie the arrival of the new rjs to mainline fleet growth and offered improved job protections..... The MEC has not approved any negotiations for the company's proposal.


My thoughts:

It seems to me, that the problem will solve itself. I am relieved to hear that MTOW scope concessions are not on the table. But I certainly don’t see how the “ratio” will be improved by giving scope relief for 50 new (70/76) seat airplanes. The 50 seat planes are going away regardless. Management has 3 big problems with the 50’s: The people hate them, they are extremely inefficient, and the regionals can’t staff them. Those planes will disappear regardless of what we do, so the only thing we stand to gain by giving relief on the 70/76 seat planes is to accelerate the process. This is not a win for us, We would be solving all three of managements problems mentioned above, and in some crazy Stockholm syndrome way, convincing ourselves that we need to “give” them something in return for the opportunity!

Why not just hold fast on the 70/76, seat scope, and let management retire the 50’s at their leisure, or as dictated by financial prudence? By doing so, we will eliminate the 50 seaters form the mix, give away no new capacity with the larger RJ’s, and and if Delta has need of 50 new planes worth of lift, they can bring the MRJ’s or more C1000’s to mainline? That will mean 600 new jobs at Delta that would have otherwise remained at the regionals. (And that’s 600 more ALPA Dues-paying jobs, which should make the Moakies happy!) I think most pilots at Delta would much rather see 600 more pilots under them on the list, and 50 more airframes on Delta property, than a slightly accelerated 50-seat retirement schedule, and some insignificant cash incentive from the company. The 50’s are not our problem! They are management’s problem. So, why not let management solve it?

That said I think there should be no relief in the JV sections, either.

Great thoughts, I agree with you. Let the problem play out on its own. Bring those jets to Mainline, and I'm sure you'll staff them easily. As far as the company offering improved job protections...yeah right. They can offer the moon, put it on paper, and just do what they want to anyway. Five years later, we'll each get about 2,000 dollars for the grievance settlement. Again, great post!

50 70+ seaters seems like an extremely large amount. I can't think of a single regional that could staff those unless they were a trade for 50 seaters that were already on property.

No worries. Even though I would prefer them not coming I see it happening. I know that I am in the minority on this and that is OK - I respect the guys that will vote No with 1 more RJ and that is also OK.

Here is my thinking on this. I lived through the decade where 50 more large RJs resulted in hundreds of furloughed Delta Pilots. I don't see that happening here. Like I said we can look at C-2012 and see actual results - we don't have to speculate. Scope is to protect jobs - could we have possibly hired more Pilots if C-2012 was not passed? I don't know but I doubt it.

After living through the last decade I did breathe a sigh of relief when we ordered the C series and basically felt that we may have lost a few RJs battles but that we won the war. We held the line at 76 seats and the number of RJ seats is rapidly going down. Yes 50 seaters will probably go away anyway - I do believe that, but if we can get a bunch of other improvements in our PWA for this I am willing to give it a look.

I get the angst over more RJs and also find it distasteful, but I am not willing to vote No on a deal that allows more RJs if I don's see those RJs as hurting DAL Pilots - which I just don't see. I understand the principled No vote and in the past I would probably be doing the same but I see it as futile right now.

I know this is an very unpopular thing to say on the forums but it is how I feel.

Scoop

what about all the -200's going to endeavor this year?

Do you know whether or not it is true that they still have 25 large RJs that they have not taken delivery of? I hear what you are saying, and I actually think on a certain level we are in agreement. What I am saying is that their 'need' is not as dire as some on here are making it out to be. They know that guys will get all spooled up over this issue and do almost anything to protect it. Head fake. jmho

well said sir.

No, DCI is maxed out on all their aircraft, and over the scope limit on 50's right now until Republic winds down the E145's. Management would like to get 50 more 76 seat jets to Skywest to park their 50's, and then 9E will just park our 40, as they are temporary anyway. That would end the 50 seaters at Delta completely unless there is a carve out for the at risk flying that Skywest is doing.

I still can't figure out why management has a deal with GoJet, that partnership has tarnished Delta's performance, and alone cost them the number one airline award last year.

DCI likely won't be going away, the work rules here allow Delta to take on additional market share that would be dropped unless you offered concessions. Then, there are the 27 gates in ATL that Delta would lose to another airline if they lose their deal with Skywest. Republic DCI being shut down would have resulted in Delta losing 5 departure slots in DCA to AA, so Delta had to ink a long term deal with them. Salaries are no longer a part of the process in my opinion, even though if TA1 had been approved there would have been a $150K pay gap between a regional 76 seat jet, and a mainline 76 seat jet. The big deal is market share, and there is no way for Delta to get that back if they choose to use mainline over regionals.

I'm not sure how the DCI model holds up. If the requirements to fly for them are same as mainline why would someone voluntarily work for half pay? The model is imploding on itself. Mgmt outsmarted themselves when they bought bazillions of RJs to access small markets and whipsaw pilot groups. They thought pilots would flock to crappy flying and pay even after they greatly eroded the value of progression to the majors. Mgmt never had a plan to follow up the 50 seaters other than scope concessions and cheap labor. Any relief we give them now would probably just help them lower the RJ industry into its grave. Its just another temporary fix to management's blunders we should leverage to the max. JMO, OFG

LOL that's the point. And precisely why we shouldn't even entertain it.

We'll see when we get the eventual TA. If its not in there, you'll be right about this. If it is, I will be right about this. And I do NOT want to be right about this.

I'm betting more large RJ's will be in TA2.0

I don't think DCI will "go away" either. If we hold strong on scope this time at the regional level, more 50's will be parked and DCI will shrink, but will still be there. Its also possible to put a first class in the 50's, which they may end up doing just to say they are all first class etc. It would help those POS's with max weight and forward CG issues as well. Yes it would increase the CASM, but that's just a paper pusher number because the trip cost would be the same and they'd get more revenue per flight out of it IMO. Even if it ended up being a net loss, they would still do it because the losses would be easily spread out (if not outright hidden), marketshare would be preserved and getting to say "every flight has first class period" would be marketing gold for HVC's. Regionals flew 40 and 44 seat CRJ-200's for many years and easily may do so again, only this time with a first class instead of the closets and false bulwarks.

The RAH debacle was a huge mistake IMO. Paying that much, and breathing life into a cut throat bottom feeder that will always have aspirations to fly larger planes/merge with "Nationals" (as they used to be called) etc is a mistake just for a tiny number of slots in LGA. Better to let them go and simply upsize existing slots. Or simply outbid the competition for those slots when they went to liquidation, which they would have. Worst case we'd let some desperate airline like JB/VX drastically overpay, and then we could bury them with their own money on whatever routes they chose to use them on.

The SKYW issue I agree is a bigger deal, but it's not the fulcrum to our future by any means. When almighty SWA bought asymmetric guerrilla warfare specialists AT, that moment represented IMO the absolute high water mark for what would be possible for a dangerous competitor in ATL. And DL kicked their tails. Hard. Now what's left is a very rational competitor that not only doesn't harm DL, but actually helps stabilize it.

Who exactly will be able to come in and leverage the SKYW gates against an incredibly healthy DL and SW now, who will both become allies of necessity if it happens?

Empty threat. All they have to do is spend a quarter or two's stock buyback money and they can bury any possible competitor that could use those gates. SKYW needs DL more than DL needs SKYW.

That said, I see them keeping them precisely because of that; they're even less motivated to press to test that than we are. We throw them a few bones over their current book, maybe swap a few 50's for 76s, and they'll be happy. JA has a massive ego, but he's not stupid. ATL is far from the gold mine some seem to think it is. Its great for a megahub because it moves traffic well, and its a good market but its nothing mind blowing. There's very little low hanging peaches down there y'all.

DCI will probably shrink by half due to the pilot shortage, but there are enough lifers here to sustain an operation for quite a while.

The fact that they paid that much for RAH was the tell that pilots don't matter anymore. Our salaries, both yours and mine, are so low that they don't matter operationally anymore. In the 90's pilot salaries were 15% of revenue, now they are less than 3%. It's all market share, and work rules now that market pricing control has returned driving our future. We pilots tend to think it's all about us, but the DCI relationship is more strategic these days than arbitraging some salaries of pilots.

I agree. I think the value in DCI to management is largely theoretical based on outdated and broken models.

Just look at how they operate their regionals. Before the CMR strike, majors tended to give regionals total to near total control of any given hub, and it worked great. Recovery and manning was a breeze, and once they got control of the crappy ASA ramp in ATL, things were run relatively well. Then, in order to insulate themselves from a once in a several decade theoretical event that may or may not ever happen again, they trashed the entire system every day, spazzing about "diversifying their portfolio" and now when something happens it has a massive ripple effect, force multiplied by adding in incompetent cut throat operators specifically to harm your good ones. :roll eyes:

Right now maybe the best thing we can do is let them choke on their shortage. They can throw large bonuses and SSP's at some groups, but not all of them. And even then there's been no supply creation and they're still ignoring it.

No more 76ers IMO.

So let me get this straight..

Pre-C12 there were 155 76-seat jets and 70 70-seaters for a 225 total?

Post C12 there were how many 76-seaters and 70-seaters?

And we want to allow them to increase to how many 76-seaters and how many 70-seaters?

I am seeing a pattern here.

DCI currently has 466 jets
76 - 225
70 - 103
50 - 138

The scope limit is 455, which will be met when RAH parks the E145s.
I think DCI will be this in 5 years.
70 - 100
76 - 275
50 - 0

375

Mainline will need 75 - 100ish C-series to cover the shortfall.

I think that's a very rational assessment, especially on the small-gauge end of the spectrum.

We'll have to look at the WB end very carefully, but the trades made in NB have been positive.

How we capture/retain/share on the WB end is not so clear. One thing we'd have to get in any TA is a 60-day MEMRAT with a jump on language.

If the 50's are going away why is Endeavor pulling more and more 50's out of storage. They are pulling 20more next year alone. They are all getting new paint, inside refurnished with Econ comfort coming to the 50 seat as well. Seems like they aren't going away to me.

They need them for my commute. I will likely ride on the last one before they go to the desert for good ;)

The Avros in the desert have new paint jobs. Ask management, they will tell you the 200's are just place holders till the C-Series comes on line. The 200 base in NYC is closing by the end of 2018.