Originally Posted by OldFlyGuy (Post 2191590)

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

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 2191695)

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.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2191713)

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.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 2191051)

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.

Originally Posted by Farmlover (Post 2191997)

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.

Originally Posted by Farmlover (Post 2191997)

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.