More Delta Scope Relaxation?
03-21-2009 | 01:58 PM
#31
Underboob King
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Commander
the point is that under the scope clause the ONLY planes that were allowed over the 86,000 lbs were CPZ airplanes. It clearly states that those planes were the exemption. Therefore these planes will be in violation of the SCOPE language.
03-21-2009 | 02:15 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
I guess I might be missing the boat but who really cares about weights and why? Wouldn't seat count be all that matters? I guess you could say "well they could fly further" but then again that would just be a much a higher increase in cost with no increase in seat availability. Seems like there's other issues more important to be battled at the moment.
I care. Because those planes are currently prohibited from flying a Delta code unless they are flown by Delta pilots. So, if Delta management wants to use them, fine; put a Delta pilot in the seat. Otherwise, NO.
Scope matters in every respect and I'm tired of the erosion that has occurred over the past ten years.
PG
03-21-2009 | 02:35 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 1
Here's why 89,000 pounds was a big deal
(and it's not anymore, since the MEC gave it away)
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
I guess I might be missing the boat but who really cares about weights and why? Wouldn't seat count be all that matters? I guess you could say "well they could fly further" but then again that would just be a much a higher increase in cost with no increase in seat availability.
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
03-21-2009 | 02:37 PM
#34
Underboob King
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Commander
(and it's not anymore, since the MEC gave it away)
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
03-21-2009 | 02:56 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,107
Likes: 103
Heyas,
Far be it from me to defend what's been going on with scope...BUT...
Until an actual flight, with a DAL code, at the higher weight occurs, no grievance can be filed.
With that said, there's nothing wrong with passing along the information....
Forget 44...send it to 1 or 20...they actually seem to care and have the horsepower to do anything about it.
Nu
Far be it from me to defend what's been going on with scope...BUT...
Until an actual flight, with a DAL code, at the higher weight occurs, no grievance can be filed.
With that said, there's nothing wrong with passing along the information....
Forget 44...send it to 1 or 20...they actually seem to care and have the horsepower to do anything about it.
Nu
03-21-2009 | 05:17 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
(and it's not anymore, since the MEC gave it away)
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
Why would Delta pilots care about weights?
Because thanks to an MEC that does not have a clue, they are losing routes faster than they can say the word outsourcing.
MSP to SMF/RNO/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAX/SAN/ONT/PSP/LAS are will now all be possible with the E75, with no weight restrictions, year round, with every seat full.
Read that again, MSP pilots.
Those nice cushy daytrips are never going to grow in numbers to secondary cities now. Ever! If it's not enough for an Airbus, it will be outsourced.
How about SLC-ATL? No problem. MEM-LAX? It can do it. JFK-DEN. Currently mainline right? Think it needs to be a mainline jet every day? Perhaps an Embraer will work better?
There are hundreds of more examples.
I'm not one to condone reduced scope. But, I deal with reality. Ain't gonna happen. Pax are sick of smaller jets. That was a fad that is fading quickly. Plus, Delta has figured out that mainline jets are more efficient.
Just saying...
03-21-2009 | 05:25 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
From: Bebe Bus De L'Air Assistant Aerial Conveyance Facilitator
Not always.
At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.
The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.
The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.
What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).
Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)
At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.
The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.
The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.
What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).
Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)
03-21-2009 | 05:25 PM
#39
Underboob King
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Commander
I don't think those will ever happen. SLC-ATL isn't a secondary city route, for example. Its two Delta hubs connecting. MEM to LAX? Again, two Delta hubs (now) connecting. If you want to see what happens to a largely CJ hub see CVG. A ghost town (and not because of mainline desertion). Comair is the company parking jets, not mainline Delta.
I'm not one to condone reduced scope. But, I deal with reality. Ain't gonna happen. Pax are sick of smaller jets. That was a fad that is fading quickly. Plus, Delta has figured out that mainline jets are more efficient.
Just saying...
I'm not one to condone reduced scope. But, I deal with reality. Ain't gonna happen. Pax are sick of smaller jets. That was a fad that is fading quickly. Plus, Delta has figured out that mainline jets are more efficient.
Just saying...
This isnt about comair and 50 seaters though. It about RAH flying 170s with increased weights meaning they CAN do the longer flights that was mentioned. PAX hate flying on the 50 seaters but the they dont mind the 170/175s. Have you ridden in the back of one? They are nice planes that should have been at Mainline in the first place and flown by mainline pilots.
03-21-2009 | 05:46 PM
#40
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Not always.
At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.
The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.
The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.
What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).
Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)
At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.
The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.
The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.
What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).
Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)
What is cut and dry is this. It is a true violation of the contract. We have specific language to which aircraft may be above the GW limit and which may not be. It is not subject to how they see what is a high water mark v/s a/c on property at delivery. This section does not have any of that sort of language in it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
