Changes In Scope
 

From a lowly regional guy whose relatively new to the 121 world, can someone concisely explain what Delta management has come forward with in regards to DCI scope in your contract talks? This might be in a thread somewhere but I've had no luck finding it.

I'm also not trying to start an argument, I think everyone is on board with you guys and gals holding the line on scope. I'm just interested to see what management wants and how that may or may not affect the regional model for Delta going forward.

Very little details at this point. Almost everything you will hear as of now is speculation.

We do know they are attempting to nuke all our airline JV and theatre JV protections and move to a single, highly "flexible" global balancing system. IMO they wouldn't even waste ink on that if their intended net effect was anything other than reducing our jobs further, even if only by a little.

Domestically they finally conceded that SEA is a hub and will be treated as one IAW our PWAs existing protections for a hub. Basically it should help protect us from any attempt to resurrect the ALK code share abuse that has, through completely different reasons, largely taken care of itself for now. Locking that in now when its cheap and easy would be nice IMO.

As for RJ's, again we don't have much specific to go on, but "word on the street" is they want more large RJ's (CRJ900/EMB175/etc) likely in exchange for an almost identical seat count in the form of less 50 seaters they don't like, don't want, they want to park anyway and likely can't staff going forward in the first place.

Small rumors of "even larger" RJ's but if true its likely that is merely a throwaway item to begin the time honored process of getting us to accept the premise and start negotiating with ourselves. Pretty sure that would be met with outright revolt if it wormed its way into any TA, especially at anywhere near these pathetic (and already concession laden) pay rates, so likely this is a non issue.

The 50 seaters will be gone soon, ED insists that every Delta plane must have a first class.

What are you willing to give up to get that? :p

Apparently, the company's stance is that 50's will continue to get parked (planned down to around 100 at this point), and the C-series will begin to replace the 76 seaters.

great, so no need for any scope concessions.

He left out the part where the 76 seater is replacing the 50 seater. So they want more of those.

Limited time offer. Fleeting opportunity. Otherwise they'll re-engine them and staff them with all the pilots to pilot them. True story.

Great post Gloopy.

IMO additional 76 seat jets for DCI is a done deal.

Hearing same thing. Park 50 seaters and add 76 seaters at a 3 to 1 ratio is what I'm hearing. Same play from last time.

I certainly hope so. The C12 scope was a major win. It's not a coincidence we have 1.5 year mainline captains.

3 to 1 or 1 to 3? Is it 1 76 seater for every 3 50 seaters?

Doesn't really seem like a great deal seeing as they are going to park the 50 seaters regardless, no?

You are funny. Keep telling yourself this.

TEN

this


filler

Depends on what they are willing to pay for it. Everything is negotiable. I tend to agree with you, but it would be stupid not to entertain an offer.

only problem is they want us to pay for it.

And you know this, how?

Domestic scope for C2012 worked out well for the guys who became junior captains quickly, and for hiring, although it took longer than anyone thought. But that's from a personal perspective. It was also good because we now carry the passengers instead of the regional affiliates.

A repeat of that might be ok as long as we end up carrying more passengers, we end up with more pilots, and we end up with more jets. If it's just shifting passengers between 50's and 76's I don't think it's a deal we want to take.

3 to 1 would bring in 40 new 76 seaters, that would bring them up to the number of 50 seaters prior to bankruptcy. So in ten years, Delta has maintained the same number of seat miles yet reduced operational footprint by 25%.

My 2 cents:

I could live with more 76 seaters if a far greater number of 50 seaters are parked and total RJ lift decreases and mainline lift increases - with the right deal. This mean no more seats, no higher MGTOW, just a few more 76 seaters.

I know allowing more large RJs is very distasteful, Me and 1100 of my closest buds had a unpaid vacation due to the RJ proliferation from 2000-2005, but times have changed.

We are hiring as fast as we can.
Guys are no longer stagnating at the regional.
Less RJ seats, less RJ Pilots is a good thing.
The Alaskan Code-share has withered.
Finally and by far most importantly, We have the C series order at mainline. The final lines of the RJ era have been drawn at 76 seats. We no longer have to worry about larger and larger RJs encroaching on mainline.

Lets not get hung up fighting the last war - RJs as an issue is dead - lets focus our efforts on JV scope and code-shares - that is were the section 1 threat lies in my opinion.

Scoop

well said sir.

I don't care what's being bought that's larger, C-series, 717s, 737-600/700, whatever.

The 76 seat jet is what the DC-9-10 was and that was mainline.

One additional 76 seater is an automatic no-vote, single issue, for many and for good reason.

The rest of the TA would be irrelevant.

Careful with the Cseries order, you are going to get hundreds of those things regardless of what deal you make. Also, the C100 could go away in favor of the 300/500 aircraft, the market certainly supports the larger aircraft, and the C100 has basically the same operational costs as the C300. The C100 was built for short field performance, it's not optimal weight for engine size.

The point is the once nebulous RJ/Mainline dividing line has now solidified. Once the C series of any model comes to mainline that is where all models will stay.

Scoop

Fair enough - your vote counts just as much as mine. I trust the combined wisdom of 13,000 Pilots far more than I trust the judgement of any 1 individual - including myself.

Scoop

Good post, Scoop..but 1310 guys/gals got to take that vacation..and I just don't think I could vote for any increase in the number of 76 seaters..ever.

They can use their existing permitted 76 seaters to replace 50's..and buy more C-series flown by mailing to cover the difference. Don't they still have 25 76 seaters available under the existing hard cap that they haven't used?

Jmho, CG

If that is in fact true, (idk) then what is the point of them 'wanting' more? throw..... away.... and it gets contrails and 'many others' all spooled up. It is a red herring deflection and then they get something for nothing.

You are correct - 1310. I omitted the FM-2 guys since they were supposedly furloughed due to the Iraq war and not as directly related to the growth of RJs, but your number is probably better. :)

Scoop

Until the C series is on the property I see no value in allowing more 76 seaters. They could easily cancel the C series orders if we allow more 76 seaters. They are saying the 321 is now the 88 replacement due to its limited range.

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.