What Bar said.

yes!! and everyone else should be doing the same! have you emailed yours? keep the fire hot!

Let me ask you this:

Without Section 1, does any of the rest of the contract bind?

I submit to you scope is more important than any other part of the contract. Scope also controls the large aircraft code share and Compass is just the issue of the hour because of our recent scope concessions and the representational issue that has been raised by the Executive Board. We must also be concerned about international code share.

Leo Mullin's dream was to run the World's largest travel agency. My dream was to fly airplanes. Richard Anderson wants to run an airline. The only part of this story that has a representational obligation to ME is my union. To effect change the proper course is to present resolutions.

I don't want to run an airline, but since you insist. We should not have to build a business case to convince our own union why protecting scope is important, but since MANY Delta pilots believe scope = bargaining credit, here you go:

• The Compass flow is unworkable and will cost no less than $7,000,000 if it is even possible. Every year those costs will escalate since the issue of longevity will force pilots over an imaginary line, rather than letting them bid for base and quality of life like we do at mainline.
• Compass has three layers of management when only one is needed
• Compass has three of everything else, from Certificate Compliance to Flight Attendants.
• Having separate ops means crews and equipment can not be scheduled as efficiently
• The E175 is an 88 seat jet with 76 passengers. 12 pax would bring additional revenue.
• No one else competes with our flying in this seat range (one reason Anderson likes the DC9 so much)
• The Compass jets have jumpseats, and much better non rev travel for Delta commuters if they become Delta
• The MD88/90 and yes, even the 737 are previous generation airframes. They are excellent platforms, but the MD90 has limited efficiency because of its wing. The 737NG has a better wing, but is expensive to acquire. Management obviously likes the new generation jets because they are acquiring them on nearly a 4 to 1 ratio with "our" equipment.

But again, I don't want to be a manager and Richard Anderson doesn't want my advice. ALPA has to listen to me (even if they think I'm a putz) ;) Our hand is being forced by the Representational issue.

+1 on that

Well put. It is good to know what the business side of the argument might be, but we do not need to make the case. Fact is there is a lot of money to be saved by bringing some of this flying back in house.

You reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

What does "disruptive" technology have to do with it? Is there not two pilots flying the airplane regardless if it's a 777 or a CRJ? Who those pilots are is not a technology issue, but rather a legal one. Bankruptcy, while it ultimately affected some carriers mainline labor scope contracts, nevertheless is not "disruptive technology."

Airframes are being replaced by 737s, not lost. AMR would like to have more 76 seat jets flown at a discount by AE, but has not said they want 110 seat aircraft. Your assumption also is that mainline would fly the smaller narrow bodies for the same rates as commuters. I don't think guys care what they fly necessarily, but they do care about what they're paid. The APA already has RJ pay rates. They're listed under "F100" in the greenbook. They can buy as many as many small jets as they want. So, your conclusion is totally erronous.

Management must be free to put the right equipment on the right route. I don't think any union has a problem with that. Again, it's who's in the cockpit that's important. Your implied assumption is that management would subsitute E-175's for 767s. Totally illogical, even for airline managers.

I can't speak to CAL and UAL, but I'm not sure that there's money enough to float that boat anchor around CALs neck.

As for AMR and LCC, even AA management must see that LCC is a totally unworkable quagmire, not to mention the integration nightmare that would make TWA look tame by comparison. I'm pretty darn sure that the APA has had it's fill of absorbing other airlines. Anybody that would loan AMR money for anything more than a fragmented acquisition of hard assets (not personnel, considering the large number of ex-TWA pilots and FAs on furlough) only would have to have their head examined.

Some think that Delta has overreached in it's international expansion.


It's in management's interest to transfer as much flying as possible to cheaper pilots. They would have 1000 hour commuter pilots flying 777s if they could. The corporate execs deal in raw power. Labor must meet that challenge using all the legal means possible, and that is collective bargaining.

Southwest does not have RJs. They are the highest paid pilots. Hmmmmm. Is there a pattern here? However, as point of fact, SWAPA is restless now and sees a scope fight developing. Southwest's past management has been quite different in approach and tone towards labor than almost all the other major airlines. In management school there's an old saying that goes "Any company that has bad labor problems has bad management." It's as true today as it was long ago.

This is an old negotiating tactic from management. Make the union negotiate against itself by making them manage labor costs for management. Labor is a cost, just like fuel. Let them figure out how much to charge for a ticket.

I don't know if this has been said yet, so I apologize if I'm bludgeoning a dead horse, but one other important factor to keep in mind is that these regionals (with one notable exception) are making money hand over fist. While it might be true that you can operate a E175 for less than a DC9, you must also consider that a portion of what you are paying for that E175 is coming directly out of your potential profits and going to the profits of another airline. Perhaps Northwest's/Delta's losses wouldn't be so astounding if they weren't paying for the profits of Pinnacle, Compass, Mesaba, ComAir, Mesa (well...), Republic, ExpressJet (at a time), ASA, and SkyWest. Sure, $10m a piece may not seem like much, but $90m a year plus the savings of having everything done in house (not paying for 9 different management/dispatch/scheduling/accounting/legal/other teams), surely is enough to make a meaningful difference on their balance sheets.

Bucking Bar said he doesn't want to run an airline, and neither do any of us, that's why we became pilots. However, if management incompetence is directly effecting our livelihood, QOL, job security, and the future prospects for our profession, then it becomes our responsibility to show management exactly WHY it is important to reign in all these regional/code share operations.

Any failure on managements part to recognize this can be attributed just as much to our negotiations failures as it can be to management ineptitude.

That is why I have long stated that these margins make it cost beneficial for DALPA to look at the cost associated in recapturing this flying.
The CASM that said DCI carrier does not take in to account these guaranteed profits.(margins) That would have to be costed out by Delta since it is a cost to us per departure that is amortized out over the average segment length and available seats. ---See it gets muddy, but it is a lot of money.
If you compile all of the 10K reports most if not all of these margins are in there. It comes out to hundreds of millions of dollars a year that we are paying out to guarantee profits for them. That money came from somewhere.

Heyas,

I would point out that bringing the 175 to the mainline (buh bye Republic et al), we also pave the way for the 195.

Like the DC-9-10/30/40/50, 319/320, 757-200/300 etc etc, and others, you can have a common crew fly the right sized aircraft for the market, and you can fly as many of them as you want. Seems to make good economic sense instead of drawing an arbitrary line.

Slow has a lot of nerve, laying this on guys who just want a quick upgrade. Reminds me of some old RB guys I flew: "we have guys on furlough?"...they have their ladders on a high speed retraction mechanism, and sound like Pavarotti warming up: "Me Me Me ME ME!"

Nu

And those hundreds of millions come at the cost of reduced flexibility, octupled overhead, and reduced simplification.

And is exactly why there is economic viability to this arguement.

That's funny stuff, I don't care who you are.

I didn't try to nail you and I don't understand how wanting a fourth stripe is a bad thing. I sure did when I was a first officer. As for the rest, I guess I can only say you are just wrong. I don't try to make excuses on why we should not recapture this flying. I am pretty sure that I have spent a lot more time thinking about a real path to get this done and have tried to get the ball rolling at the levels I can. You think I bring up the difficulties to say it can't be done but I bring up the difficulties because we have to find a way to get there.

There are many problems and it will be difficult. You think you can just wave a magic scope wand at this problem and it will go away. If you want to hide behind the "I'm just labor" excuse, fine, but don't expect any results. My guess is you just want to vent and "write your reps" and have someone else solve the problem. That's fine, but don't tar me with that label. Real solutions take real work.

Oh and by the way, AMR is getting rid of more MD-80's than they are getting replacements so your example is a bad one. They are shrinking mainline hulls this year. Lot's of guys retiring but not many getting recalled.

I can tell you this much. Bar is willing to work. Just ask him. He has a great skill set. I am willing to work on this issue. We have been dealing with it and trying to wrap our arms around it in one way or another for over a decade.

We have an opportunity here, CPZ is on our team. Put them on their own MEC you will in effect create OH. Keep them part of the team as a voting member of the MEC, and or part of our list you capture the E-series flying.
Republic Holdings is not ALPA so we will not have the same pitfalls as we would with another ALPA carrier. No other ALPA carrier flies the type. We do not have a conflict of interest with the Ford-Cooksey settlement. Now the CRJ-900 we do. But here is a true chance for a step forward.

I'm going to have to say your intent was very much to nail someone and not to be a productive part of the conversation.

I think its clear with the resolutions that are being passed around that there is a plan and its coming together and I think you'll start seeing it all over the place shortly. The point is to go right up to DALPA and force the issue because as Bar said, Delta runs the airline, DALPA represents us, we want this issue discussed and not brushed aside by folks who missed the 50 seat RJ revolution over a decade ago and will miss this one as well if not pushed.

And as a side note, yes CAL does not have a 100 seat aircraft on order but they have a whole bunch of 114 seat 735s they got stuck with during their low times and they really hate them. Horrific CASMs. Turns out taking a 733 to a 735 is a real bad idea. In fact, buying any 100 seat version of a 150 seat plane is a bad idea and probably why DAL and NWA independent of each other turned to 76 seaters instead of to either Boeing or Airbus when it came to a small aircraft fleet. Neither Boeing or Airbus are coming out with a small jet, they still don't think anyone is going to order it, same thing they said a decade or more ago and now I think there have been 2000 or 2500 RJs built in less than 10 years. Thats the trend, thankfully junior folks who were the replacement jet pilots, or FLAPS as some call, us get it.

I've got a business idea... since we've been challenged to come up with one to present... use A320s and when that stops being profitable we'll supplement them with E-Jets. Its an original idea.

http://www.jetblue.com/i/about/whyyo...mbraere190.jpg

Or we can stick to making the worlds largest airline and very possibly the strongest Legacy carrier just that much better by getting DALPA to fight to add Compass to Delta and thus take mainline sized aircraft out of DCI and back to mainline.

Agreed... nothing wrong with pointing out where the land mines are buried. It is good to get intel from those who have traveled this road before.

What I hope to learn, if there is time before this Compass representational issue goes too far, is how much the answers to the issues you raise may have changed since bankruptcy / re-org & merger. Many of our assumptions may be based on data which is no longer accurate. Let me provide one example.

We were told one reason flying could not be brought back to mainline was the costs outside of pilot costs. The costs of under wing service & gate agents. Now those positions have been consolidated into DGS. That former objection has been cleared.

It may be time for a fresh look at the numbers so that we can intelligently develop a rational, objective, long term scope strategy.

Without this plan, we are stuck constantly reacting to bad news and the easy answer is always a scope concession.

Like you said, we must find a way to get there.

Must be nice to have the luxury to insulate yourself from your company...

If you haven't figured out by now, the way the company is run IS a labor issue.

Or you can sit back and get Tilton, Kolshak, Carty or a bunch of thieving New York bankruptcy lawyers and "investment" bankers to run YOUR company for their personal benefit.

Your argument is a red herring. For historical reference, what was the size of the BAE146 and its sisters?

Those aircraft used to be at ASA and Mesaba. At ASA, they went away completely due to tightened scope (achieved during Section 6 negotiations). At Mesaba, they didn't violate seat limits.

For historical reference, tell me how that worked as a tactic for recalled furloughees flying Delta Express?

It didn't.

There's no need to relive the history, but there's something there from which you can learn.;)

Thanks! You understand my position.:)

I still haven't seen anyone make a cogent argument on how to

1. achieve what your LEC resolutions desire with a contract amendable date of 12/31/12.

2. Explain how achieving the limited results your resolutions desire (stapling CPZ) will enhance the job security, careers, pay and benefits of all Delta pilots.

All I see is a self-flagellating exercise with a lot of noise and no achievable result.

You need to read what the resolution entails.(There are a few out there) It is only, as Bar put it, "resolving to study, research, and report back." We are not demanding anything. We want this issue looked at and studied before we go off and separate CPZ from our MEC. It would create another OH. We really do not want that do we? The MEC is able to table this if they so choose, we are aware of that.
There is a benefit to giving them a vote on the MEC, and or stapling them. They are already in seniority order, and more importantly we recapture some of the flying we gave up. We also could recapture the E-series type since it is not flown by another ALPA DCI carrier. Ergo it does not go against the Ford-Cooksey settlement with ALPA national. There are some real merits to it.
As I said, we, Bar and I, are for the ALPA process, we just want to make sure that this issue is thoroughly looked at before we go and make a decision.

How does it create another OH? Big assumption, with the only similarity that they were wholly owned, and CPZ was created at the direction of the NWA CBA.

Please explain that benefit. I don't see one unless seats or aircraft type are already scoped. Voting members that don't share my interests and flying that I don't own through scope make Delta pilot jobs more vulnerable, not less.

One of the fundamental flaws in your argument. You recapture ZERO flying by stapling or merging with CPZ. All you capture is their seniority list. Your distinction between ALPA and Teamster E-Jet flying is the perfect example of that.

Your argument puts your conclusion before the study you claim to request.

I appreciate the level of detail that some are drilling down in to, but I think we have to remember one point that is EXTREMELY important in my opinion:

Our union chose to not even fight! Our union chose to settle out of court/arbitration. Our union chose this option on the single most important issue in any contract. THAT is a significant problem in our union.

Carl

I really don't see why some FDAL guys are so against this.

More airline airplanes so mid level guys that want to fly the left seat can.

Recapturing some flying lost. Hopefully if this happens all future 76 seat airplanes will go to mainline.

Maybe it is because FDAL guys want the airplane and don't think that CPZ guys are worth it. That is fine but if everything stays the same and DAL starts to hire the 1st 20 guys in each class will be CPZ anyways.

This should be not even need a discussion. It benefits all pilots under DALPA.

It may not seem apparent to senior CA but it is better in the long run. Look at Air Canada they fly the E175 and the 3rd year pay rate is 60 an hour for the right seat and 114 an hour in the left seat.


At those pay rates I am sure a lot of FO with gladly fly this airplane

I understand your argument Slow. Where we get in to some issues is the Ford-Cooksey settlement. You know that.
The E-series jets are the only ones that do not fall under this. Hence less likely for a lawsuit for certain individuals.
I would love to see us scope all 76 seat flying. I agree that section six is where this will probably occur. Read the resolution, it is in effect keeping the door open with CPZ, if the MEC chooses not to make them Delta pilots. How we do this is by keeping them on our MEC. There is a lot in play over at CPZ that the everyone needs to educated on. It has the makings of another OH.

Dead on!! 100% agree

Republic flies the E-170 and E-175 also. Their 175's are a different model that isn't quite as heavy if I remember right.

Republic is not a part of ALPA, but yes, they do have E-170 and E-175s.

This is like Coex circa 2001 all over again. The MEC will boot the CPZ guys off the MEC because they are "regional" guys. The company will then sell CPZ and the flow provision will be cancelled because they are no longer a wholly owned company. It will be much easier to capture the CPZ flying now than it will after they are sold. Asking the MEC to "study" the issue only gives the company more time to sell the place.

I guarantee you that ALPA and the company know exactly what it would save or cost to bring CPZ to mainline. The study should take about two hours to put into a PDF and be e-mailed to all of us. Why am I willing to bet they will study this until CPZ is sold and then not release any of the information?

Sorry, I missed the ALPA in the original statement.

That is the majority of the thrust behind resolution. "Report Back"

If they sell cpz and cx the flow then they have to revert back to 85 total 76 seaters right? I don't think they will sell it just to get rid of the flow. The cal agreement didn't have provisions in it to protect the scope and flow.

Correct, there are teeth to this flow that are peppered in different sections of the contract. There is a very big downside to get rid of it.

Fact is, that from a DAL management perspective, it makes a lot of sense to bring em on. Why? Because of cost savings and control of the pilot product that will be on mainline one way or another. (They know this, and do not like the current flow agreements. It is a new territory for DAL)

Heyas ACL,

Not only that, but it brings possibility of the 195 to the mainline property by running a common type. It is a good economic incentive to get a 100 seater on the property while the C series gestates.

Nu

Yes, it does. And one thing that people need to realize is we are on a thin line with this 76 seat line in the sand. The 175 can and is certified to 88 passengers. We could fly that aircraft to its fullest capacity here at mainline. Keeping even 76 seats as a scope limit makes it even more economically viable to fly these airframes with mainline list.
I know some naysayers will state that the CRJ-900 is certified to 86 seats. That is correct. We need to make absolutely certain that we recapture or never all allow the seat scope limit to increase. It is always a fight in negotiations. We need to decrease it, and will do what we can.
Remember though that Ford-Cooksey settlement will pose issues since that is what EV and OH fly. Now, I see some possibilities happening there.

Just to scenarioize. Lets say they merge CPZ and OH together, then we have a real mess. Just think about that. IMHO time is of the essence, and we need to deal with this now. The possible changes to the Ford-Cooksey settlement would be disasterous for taking back scope.

Delta management likes the first class seats. We can fly every aircraft in the fleet with more seats and take out first class. The feel they generate more revenue with first class then more overall seats in the aircraft. we have tried the one class flying several times at Delta and it never offset the lost revenue the big seats generate. If we get the airframes at the mainline I don't think they will add any seats.

I agree, with that, but it does not take off the pressure for management to force the issue in regards to DCI and our scope limits set out in Section 1 of the JPWA.
Because they can put seats in the jet they will want to raise the seat limit. It does not mean that they will in this jet, it just means that the 195 can then be flow with 88 seat in it. I know, I know if is over the max gross weight limit, but hey if they get the seats they want they will get the gross weight limit they want to. Suffice to say where we are in relation to seat scope, and aircraft size is a very slippery slope. These jets are not self limiting like the 50 seat and 70 seat jets are.
The E-series has a variant that can take 120 or so people 4000 miles. Now do we want that at DCI? I don't and that is exactly where it is going given our current trend vector.

You want the planes, you get the pilots too. No furlough clause. And I remain as a captain. Thank you. If I can do it for RAH, I can do it for Delta. (I'm saying this with not a cocky attitude. I know I can provide a great service for Delta.)

What if RAH captains flying the Delta 175s and interviewed and didn't pass. What happens to them? Tough luck for them? I don't think so...

I'm all for taking these jets back to mainline but since it was the majors that caused this problem in the 1st place, simply taking the planes back and saying so sorry "regional" pilots, you have to interview and get in line. Well simply put.... F you for being so selfish and not thinking of your regional brothers and sisters! I have to provide for my family too and now I have to be punished by past pilots mistakes of eroding scope.

And for the record, I haven't interviewed at any major yet. I do not feel comftorable moving on with all the crap going on in the world.

I don't know how you ment that comment Nu but just saying my peace.

Off my soapbox.

Who owns the planes? RAH or Delta? If Delta, they can take them back and give them to anyone thay want, pilots don't follow them. If RAH owns them, they can cancel the contract and pick up any airframes they want to buy from anyone selling them. It's not going to happen, so don't worry about it. As for your statement about remaining a captain, that is why it won't work.