DAL Scope Compliance
 

I read somewhere that the current number of 70/76 seaters flying for the DCI feeders are currently in excess of what is allowed by our Scope?

Does anyone have any current numbers, and I'm assuming this now the combined number between DAL/NWA feeders?

Good God, I think the light bulb came on :)

If that's true, has a grievance been filed? If not we need a mass filing immediately.

I am not sure of the number, but I am guessing that the company arguement would be that it will be in compliance with the new jets that are scheduled to arrive this year.

Or with additional DC9's coming back into service? Don't mainline jets have to be increased 3:1 for every additional Scope jet, or RJ's decreased by the same ratio?

Unless you know something different then Delta managment as of a week ago no DC-9's are coming back in service. Most are being stripped for parts in the desert. Those going to the desert are no longer being stored in a airworthy condition. They are being stripped and scrapped. There are some pics you can find on the internet if you search. They are bringing 4 MD-88's back from the desert but Delta is sending some 757's to the desert coming up on heavy maintenance checks and NWA is sending some 757's and A320's to storage also facing heavy maintenance checks.

That must be why there have been 40 Captain (return displacement) awards in the last 2 months and they are advertising for OE and Sim instructors and plan on training 20 crews/month through the rest of the summer. Fact. :eek:

Increase acft utilization accounts for some of this, but not a 40% increase in year over year block hours. Your management source may be getting OBE info...

The daily utilization of the FNWA was very low compared to Delta's MD88's. I posted the 2007 numbers almost a year ago but don't have them here. If scheduled as hard as Delta's jets were, then yes, I could see a 30% increase in block with the same fleet of airplanes.

As far as 70/76 numbers, it is common on the Delta side for the DCI carriers to have more airplanes than allowed, BUT, the company claims those excess jets are SPARES and that the scope limits only apply to aircraft being operated.

That has been the story for years, do not know if anything has changed recently. The loads and economy again are making the CRJ700/900 & E170/175 very popular with management.

Hear hear! Welcome friends, let us repair this outsourcing at every opportunity.

Maybe because ALPA is worthless and could care less.

ALPA is only as good as the pilots who volunteer.

Ding Ding Ding! A winner!;)

X

Or the ones who participate in the democratic process of going to LEC meetings and writing and presenting resolutions.

I have seen numerous times where individual pilots with an issue and a solution can get a resolution passed and forced before the MEC and subsequently implemented that the MEC Reps might never taken up on their own.

Sailing,

You lose a little more credibility with every post. True, we are not pulling DC-9's out of the desert, but when you suggest that we are parking the DC-9's that are on property, that is false.

As per one of the chief DC-9 guys, and as indicated by our April and May '09 Awards, the DC-9's that we have are not being parked. In fact, the fleet is probably responsible for the only growth we have here on the NWA side. "200+ pilots for the DC-9 is what is needed." Words from his mouth to my ears.


New K Now

P.S. Any word from your bud who was denied the jumpseat on NWA 3 times in 6 months yet? :rolleyes:

Any interest in a resolution to staple Compass?

Yes. Best bet for getting it in front of the MEC is simultaneous resolutions from both FD and FN LEC's....

New K Now

P.S. Any word from your bud who was denied the jumpseat on NWA 3 times in 6 months yet? :rolleyes:[/quote]


You mean "Lucky?" I think he was taken to the hospital, after his crutches "unexpectedly" collapsed for no reason, causing him to fall. :)

Disclaimer: This post is purely fictional.

Bucking Bar, why don't you bring that up at the next LEC meeting. I will second it.

Or perhaps the answer is that the company is in compliance with the scope clause.

Several DC-9's were sent to the desert in Dec. A friend picking up a MD-88 said the nines he saw sitting there did not appear to be in flyable storage. In 2008 a total of 42 DC-9's were retired. As the remaining nines come up on the required aging aircraft inspections they are also going away. Most of the airframes left are good to 2011 so retirements will slow or be none this year and next. After that they pick up and all nines are expected to be off the property in 2012. This has been the company plan from day one and has not changed once. The sad part is that management seems quite content to use the 76 seat RJ's as the replacement aircraft and there are no plans to replace the airframes. The smallest aircraft we will get is the 737-700 and those will be limited in number for special markets.

Let me preface this question with the statement that "the more the merrier on the seniority list."

If Compass and/or Mesaba are stapled to the bottom, as a wholy owned subsidary, wouldn't Comair have to be added as well? Not advocating it, just wondering if there would be implications of adding one group and not the others?

Denny

It might be in our best interest to merge the list however a key point to keep in mind is that we do not control the seniority list. It is maintained by management. As long as those airlines are in compliance with scope restrictions we can not force them onto our seniority list. We would have to convince management to merge the airlines and then ALPA merger policy would apply as to how they are integrated into the list. We could not staple them. Since managements number 1 most favorite trick is the divide and conquer strategy I don't see them wanting to merge the airlines under any circumstances. We would have to offer some large contract cost reductions to get them to even think about it.

Lots of interest! As well as anything that can be done to stop outsourcing OUR jobs, upgrades, schedules, and qol!!

I agree with Sailling. You can't force the company to in effect hire pilots from another company. Even a union resolution does nothing. It would be sort of like passing a resolution that we insist Delta base 777's in LAX. They don't have to.

What we can do is recapture the type of flying they do (70 seat) for our own list and the company can hire whoever they want to do it. Whoever they hire just has to be put on our list.

Our scope language has pretty much capped off the number of rjs that can be ordered so they can't just park -9's and replace with "RJs" unless those planes are flown at mainline. Also the -9's COULD be flown well past the date you keep trying to present.

Sorry to disappoint you, but 7 DC9s are coming out of the desert as we speak.

Sailing and NewK,

I totally agree with you both. I was just what ifing if it did come to pass for whatever reason. I'd like to recapture that flying for the mainline as I suspect pretty much everyone would.

Denny

Yes, but at a great cost. Super.
The checks that need to be done on the 9 to keep them in the air cost more than the acquisition costs of a shiny new 76 seat jet. Same goes for each 757. Why do you think we keep parking them.

Maybe or maybe not but the fact still remains that they are currently capped on what they can buy and have flown by non delta pilots. If they want more than by all means they can order them if the want delta pilots to fly them. They can also get md-90's cheaper than rjs ;)

Excellent question Counselor.

With a bilateral flow through, the Compass pilots are a unique group because they are already going to be on the Delta list eventually, in staple seniority order. It would be good to offer them longevity now in exchange for being able to rationalize this fleet if that is what Delta wants to do.

IMHO Comair is a different case and unless Lawson's writings have been recinded, their MEC has taken a formal position against such a plan.

Does anyone know who the Compass Rep is and how to reach them? If so, PM me.

Straw hat poll - do you think your LEC would support this resolution?
* LEC44 - I'm guessing against a merger (anyone else?)

To get passed, this will probably have to go forward in a junior base.

We also need to understand some basic points about this process:

• Pilots can fly across Certificates and do so at Chautauqua/Shuttle America/Republic
• Pilots can fly across contracts and have done so Ransome/Pan Am comes to mind
• Pilots don't buy airplanes
• Pilots at Delta can't force pilots at Mesaba and Comair to do anything, it isn't a "cram down." Compass shares our Representative structure (another reason why we have a better bridge to begin working with Compass).
• We don't have to open Section 6 to fix problems with Section 1.

If anyone else has points to add, feel free. Anyone else want to co-sponsor something like this in LEC44?

The truly sad part is that pilots seem quite content to use the 76 seat airplanes as the replacement aircraft too.

Eric,

Pilots do not buy airplanes.

I would like to see pilots control who flies them.

Management can buy whatever they want to try to maximize profits. A union's first job is to stop the outsourcing of union jobs. ALPA has failed miserably at that core task because they have allowed narrow self interest to gain control of the bargaining process that effects the broad membership.

Still, ALPA is the best hope for restoring jobs. If we were able to pull this off, other pilot groups might see that there is a benefit to joining ALPA and thus the union would grow in numbers and strength.

Wrong!! Unless they are flown by mainline pilots. Midwest proved how valuable scope protectionisand both dal and Nwa saw first hand how selling scope erodes EVERYTHING! It's not just the junior guys effected, it's upgrades, schedules. And the senior guys getting screwed out of rides home on the rjs that they allowed into the roost to replace mainline flown aircraft. Everyone has been hurt by outsourcing even the pilots at the regionals have lost out on potential career progression.

I think the key to all of this is to stop playing be the same old playbook. Management has had over a half century to perfect getting around it. Three plus year negotiations have proved this time and again.
Fact is no management type every believes that pilots will walk out. (Read in essence a near idle threat)

I never said pilots buy airplanes.

Some pilots do control who flies them. Those pilots are at the majors and it was controlled by scope language. Which all have loosened throughout the years.

A unions job should have been to never let outsourcing happen in the first place.

9 retirement
 

OK, I've got no real good source or connection to management info., but this is what I was told in recurrent. The 9 CP came into class and did a little rumor control.

1 We are going to increase flying out of ATL to compete with Airtran.

2 They would like to keep the 9 for 5 years, which would be when the Bombardier C-Series/geared turbofan jets come out. He said those aircraft are 20% more efficient than the current 100 seat aircraft. The reasoning (which he stated) of course is not to be leap-frogged in technology/cost by our competitors.

3 He did say the 9 would not be doing any east coast shuttle stuff, as "they" don't want to put the GPS setup in the aircraft that he wants. Who knows on that one...

4 He denied the 29 9s coming out of the desert rumor, a very popular one on the 9.

My 2 cents; We have 2 airlines being combined, both I think need a 100 seat aircraft. One of the combinies has no 100 seat aircraft. The 9 is fairly immediate, it comes with a much shorter term commitment than more 76 seat RJs, and it sounds like the number of those RJs is currently restricted. Maybe the old Delta market doesn't need a 100 seat aircraft the way the old NW one does. Maybe the new Delta doesn't want to switch from the 76 seat RJ it knows. Maybe all the above and this is from a couple of 9 guys and should be subject to a MASSIVE grain of salt.

Maybe somone can set something straight for me. I thought I read in the contract that the "spares" were included in the number of aircraft we are flying. True? Does that count just for stuff in operation or does it include the desert aircraft? Thanks

I believe it counts, but it depends on who is counting.

Eric, I was just commenting on your comment. Hope you were not offended.

I agree 100%, bring em on.