Don't know if that is true, but a better question is what happened to regional flying that was related to C2012.

Did regional flying shrink? Did mainline flying grow? I think it did, and that would be good for mainline Delta pilots. If true, and we can repeat, that would be good. If not, we should pass on the deal.

I won't completely trust the wisdom of 13,000 on scope unless I become confident that a thorough, fair and unbiased pro/con paper on the topic is made available (and openly debated) well before MEMRAT. I'd hate to see a TA get voted up OR down on bad information/misunderstanding and I don't think we can or should "wing it" on scope. Come to think of it, VB/TDY and VEBA are going to need significant informational material for the same reasons.

Why do we insist on being the industry leader in destroying domestic scope clauses? C12 brought more 76-seaters to DL and subsequently added them to AAL and UAL through their loss of leverage as a result.

That can change in the blink of an eye! Remember the financial crisis of 2008 and age 65? You are aware that overseas carriers have retirement ages beyond 65 and financials across the oceans on either side are not looking real hot.

Despite SEA being a hub, the carveout for LAX remained in the TA- they could still fly to and from LAX and from LAX and SEA to any non-DL airport.

They aren't here yet. In my nine years we have ordered other airframes, even installed a sim, and yet there was never an AE for any of those planes.
They showed up, they just went to foreign carriers.

I wonder how the former AAL Fokker 100 and NWA DC9-10 pilots would've felt about seeing a CRJ-900, MRJ or E-Series parked next to them? Exactly, it would've been nuclear.

Stop making the same mistakes and trying to justify bad decisions of the past. Scope is not for sale, your generation did not manage it well. We all have an employment contact with DL, Section 1 is the only link to the rest of that flying.

So why didn't they hold the line? Is it always up to us?

Same generation.

People were hired and truly convinced that they were an extension of airline management and subsequently jumped headlong into "problem solving" that ultimately destroyed their own leverage. Despite all that has happened to us and around us- even today and clearly what will happen tomorrow- some from the same generation cannot let that strategy go. This is where its incumbent upon union leaders who have all the data, to see the strategies at play and negotiate in good faith for the people they represent. When you guys start showing up at condos, golf courses and birthday parties for management you weaken that bond and in their eyes, they stop respecting you. How does an enemy view a traitor from the other side?

Its not because of that. They would have gotten the 717's anyway. It would have been a monumental blunder of epic proportions (even by airline management standards) to attempt to fly that lift with hundreds of more refurbished 50 seaters over the current count that they'd instantly have to park.

Also, the "1.5 year captains" for now are an outlier for the plug positions in the lowest paying planes in the (by far) least desirable base of pretty much any airline. We'll see if it stays that junior, but regardless we'd have those same bid results by now regardless of C2012. There is mathematically no other way it could have turned out.

Nope.

http://c7.alamy.com/comp/E5NDNJ/inde...emi-E5NDNJ.jpg

We have GOT to drop that dangerous line of thinking. Gee what if we let them fly a single 777 at DCI, but we all got a trillion dollars! See everything is for sale! :roll eyes:

Just, no.

That is deeply flawed logic that, once the premise is even accepted, begins the process of us negotiating with ourselves for our very jobs. There are certain "red lines" we cannot allow to be crossed. The concept that we are going to get these massive gains for asinine stuff like further scope sales needs to be shut down hard. How about that original "just 20 seventy seaters"? Turns out that was just the initial order of 20 they made anyway. We keep getting played, HARD, on this.

Time to say no and treat the subject as an absolute moral issue.

Not everything is for sale.

Your logic is flawed. Deeply. Our jobs? I'll betcha that in the not too distant future we are gonna hire into the left seat, and you are worried about a handful of RJs. :rolleyes:


And regarding the 777 thing..... Really?


Al that being said, I think the 50s will die on their own so none of this is probably necessary, but all this angst is much ado about nothing.

I'd buy that logic if each contract existed in a vacuum with an automatic reset at expiration. While I disagree with your direct hiring into left seat prediction, let's say it does happen. Do you think that will happen forever? I'll bet my life the answer is "no". But we let more RJ scope relief into the contract, that is in for good, unless we bargain away something else to get rid of it. Why do that when we don't have to? I wrote all of that to agree with your last sentence...so we should not even entertain the idea of more large RJs.

Whatever you think of the idea of an 'extension' United ALPA didn't give up any RJ scope and only some marginal FRMS flexibility in our latest deal. The APA did a good job of holding the line with a relatively weak Chapter 11/arbitration hand of cards.