Sink r8

I think that probably summarizes it very well, from what I hear. The company won't budge on PS because we won't budge on RJ's. I understand there is one FO rep that's trying to make this a signature issue. It plays well to the guys just getting on, even the guys that celebrate C2012 as their anchor. This is pretty ironic, considering C2012 BOTH increased mainline flying block hour ratios AND decreased total allowed DCI footprints.

The sort of trade you are bothered by is actually a pretty good example of a benefit to existing DCI pilots, existing mainline pilots, and even the former as they become the latter (as theyget left seat opportunities, and get protected by a more inclusive no-furlough clause and better ratios).

Holding up full retro, and a deal, to prevent something that's proven wildly popular, is not a great idea. Once people figure out they're losing tens of thousands of dollars to prevent something that doesn't injure anyone (as long as mainline is more than proportionately increased), I think this stance is going to be a huge liability for the 12. Maybe not online, but in the real world, where people complete transactions using real money, and budget in US$, it's going to be an issue.

hockeypilot44

FWIW, I have heard the company is willing to park every single 50 seater and it will cost the contract carrier's jobs. It seems the line has finally been drawn at the Embraer 175. The company just wants more of them.

For me, I feel like the rj line in the sand is always moving and we have to make a stand. Making a stand is never easy as it costs us real money. I can't fault you for feeling different. I just posted what I did to fill people in if for some reason they didn't understand what was going on.

Sink r8

Thanks. We do agree very much about what is happening, and I respect your position. I think that as long as mainline is growing, and DCI shrinking, and the max size isn't being affected, it's a trade the group has found worth making.

Certainly nothing to hold up a vote over.

notEnuf

Perception is not reality. The perception of a few here only a week ago was that the direction of the 12 was unreasonably regressive.

Well... No, it wasn't. The perception that PS is a throw away item is also dangerous.

Had the company made the first move to 16.5% would we have gone to 19%? The next move is the company's, let them take as long as they need. Their true colors are on display now.

Dharma

There's a deal here. Only an Imbecile wouldn't be able to find a way to close it.

mesaba13

I personally think 50 more RJs is not that big of a deal. Those are versatile aircraft that they can move in and out of markets. We have the 717 and a whole bunch of C-series coming on board. Are they really that big of a threat? That would

notEnuf

I'm not going to agree with your calling the CEO an imbecile, but I think he's is taking an unwarranted risk with business.

404yxl

This is blatantly false.

Mainline block hour ratios went up and DCI's footprint went down solely due to the ATP law breaking the back on low wage outsourced pilot jobs.

If C2012 didn't pass, Mainline block hour ratios would have actually gone UP more and DCI's footprint would have been LESS, since DCI would have to staff smaller planes with the same number of pilots it has now.

Delta management played you in 2012 and I applaud them on their negotiation tactics. They foresaw they could only staff DCI with a little over 4000 pilots and made a play to make more of their outsourced jets 76-seaters and won. The good thing is the pilot group is waking up that outsourcing more large RJ's actually shrinks mainline more than it could have been.

Gunfighter

Claiming C2012 as the reason for increased mainline flying and decreased DCI footprints is an intentional misinterpretation of the facts. The reason for the decrease in DCI footprint is the lack of qualified candidates willing to work for poverty wages as pilots leave in droves for mainline jobs. Secondly the purchase of 717s, entirely independent of C2012 increased mainline block hours at the expense of DCI.

Our line in the sand with respect to 76 seat aircraft needs to be dug down to bedrock, filled with concrete and serve as the foundation for an absolute refusal to allow any more outsourcing. Same with JV scope.

FL370esq

I don't necessarily disagree with your general observations but, right now, we at mainline cannot fly much/any more of the DCI market till the CSeries shows so I'm not sure how much more mainline flying could have increased. If our stuff stayed the same but DCI dropped, our ratio would have increased but there would have been no benefit to us. So I am not sure of your point. Further, Marketing has been trying to shove more "DCI" flying down the throats of the M88/90 and 717 categories but crew resources has been turning it away because the equipment and crews are tapped out...just look at the ALVs and "Greedslip-fest" the last couple of years in the smallest categories.

Ergo, I see no need to expend negotiating capital on the removal of 50 seaters from the DCI market because they seem to be eliminating themselves but, if they all disappear and just a handful of 76 seaters replace them, where is the issue? Two pilots fly each and, if we cannot fly them (and right now we can't till we get more airframes like the CSeries) then we might as well let.a DCI carrier jump in and do it so Delta can capture revenue which adds to our profit sharing.

The real issue for us is looking UP the pay scale (not down) and seeing all of our JVs. Glad to see VA and AeroMexico are flying the 787 to US destinations like LAX. That is where our real focus needs to be - protecting and expanding the higher paying/more desireable flying. DCI scope has a pretty well defined fence on/around it. It is the JV issue that has me concerned.