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.

 

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.