BobZ

you shoulda seen the faces of alpa guys when early on the suggestion of the new rj flying ALL belonged on our seniority list.

Elliot

I think it's pathetic that we still have people on our list like CogF16 (hey, what'd you fly in the AF? ) who think they are "above" RJ-sized aircraft.

One product, one list. (Right, Bucking Bar?)

Tanker1497

Great post. I haven't been around a lot of pilots that think the way CogF16 does. I could understand his mindset more if he/she flew a two engine fighter, instead of the lawn dart, but it's confusing none the less. If he/she did retire from AD, and receives the check of the month, much easier to come from that point of view.

Gunfighter

CogF16 is right about military pilots putting Delta lower on their priority list, if second year pay rates are lower. Civilian pilots will also do the same. Having been in that position several years ago, most of my focus was on second year pay vs year one pay. At the current pace, there would be few pilots at second year pay in the right seat of a large RJ (C Series) at Delta, but when the music stops there will be pilots in their second, third or more year of service trapped in a low paying seat.

During the application process, that risk would be assessed and weighted accordingly. FedEx and UPS were higher on my priority list, because they provided the fastest avenue to WB payrates. I didn't care about flying a big airplane, just the pay and schedule that it came with. They weren't hiring when I was looking, so Delta instantly became my number one choice for where to work when I received the invitation for interview. CogF16 is correct that military pilots will rank Delta lower if we insource all of the RJ flying, but it's because of the pay, not the aircraft. With that fact established, it's still a good thing for us to recapture all the DCI flying we can. It will just change the makeup of the hiring pool slightly as the candidate pool changes how they prioritize Delta relative to other options. It won't be just military pilots who rank Delta lower, but civilian pilots as well.

It isn't a bad thing, this needs to happen for the profession. If we hold the line on DCI and bring more of it in house, others have a chance to do the same. We lead the industry down the treacherous RJ path years ago, it's time we lead the industry back.

JamesBond

Exactly. And these guys want to completely ignore the leverage and value we could get. Smh

TED74

In what ways would a failed TA be bad for the company? Their behavior doesn't lead me to believe they need a deal. A second MEMRAT failure would create chaos in our union - a management wet dream. Angst that should be directed at management has us instead lining up in a circular firing squad, and that would only get worse if TA2 fails. JMHO.

trustbutverify

If I read you correctly, you're saying that contractual language would prevent the company from exceeding a limit in order to follow through on a business plan. The JV violation is an example of why that's wrong. But we're getting into the weeds at this point. Back to my main point. The 125 small RJ trade is a ploy with questionable value if any in return for the large RJs. I think the company believes this hence now they are throwing in the "oh, you can keep profit sharing now" gimmick.

Dharma

You are equivocating on your inaccuracy. You were wrong. But let's move on.

If exchanging 125 50's for 50 76's can move negotiations to a TA, I'm for it. It will move more passengers from them to us. Jobs will follow. Growth will follow.

notEnuf

Why 76 then? Is the line arbitrary? MTOW and seats are just a metric. Do you have a line that should not be crossed? Lets all get 50% raises and left them have the CS-100. NO jobs lost yet right?

The sell small scope mentality has ruled this union far too long. The long term goal needs to be to protect and recapture brand flying. You diminish the power of the union to affect the brand with every carve out.

Dharma

notEnuf, I agree with your comment that the long term goal should be to protect and recapture brand flying. I don't think accepting a 50% pay raise and giving them the CS-100 would do that because we could end up carrying less passengers. I do think that eliminating 125 50 seaters and accepting 50 76 seaters would result in us carrying more passengers.

It's easy to imply that there is an arbitrary factor if you ignore the underlying metric of who carries the passenger. I want Delta pilots to carry all Delta passengers. Getting there is can take many paths.