Changes In Scope
08-28-2016, 03:37 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 325
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.
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.
08-28-2016, 04:31 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
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.
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.
08-28-2016, 05:41 PM
#5
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
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.
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 08-28-2016 at 06:01 PM.
08-28-2016, 05:43 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,504
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
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.
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 08-28-2016 at 06:01 PM. Reason: quote edit
08-28-2016, 10:39 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by Mesabah
He left out the part where the 76 seater is replacing the 50 seater. So they want more of those.
08-29-2016, 03:29 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by gloopy
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.
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.
IMO additional 76 seat jets for DCI is a done deal.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
