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.