There is not a good answer to that question. Frankly, it doesn't seem as if the company is overly happy with said holding company trying to make the tail wag the dog; let alone the union. Yet for some reason, they are great at letting themselves be beaten up by other company lawyers, while routinely handing ours their hats. :rolleyes:The time may be ripe for a new approach to scope, as well as a few other things.

HSLIGHTIN & Brake:

The history of "why scope was not written to bind holding companies" has its roots in the fact that D-ALPA did not want ASA, or Comair, to write scope that bound Delta. ALPA legal gave repeated written opinions that scope could not be written to bind holding companies.

What follows is my opinion, interspersed with the facts -----

ALPA's had lawyers based their findings on ALPA politics not law.

Then the APA went and got scope that bound holding companies and ALPA was shamed into changing their policies. After the flight attendants began writing contracts that bound holding companies, Comair's group got ALPA's acquiescence to bind Delta (as we may see some of the LGA flying forced to Comair under their scope which binds Delta) and ASA got scope that binds SkyWest management to stop the transfers of jets.

The gaping hole in Delta's scope language is either an unintended consequence of ALPA's underperforming legal department being "surprised" or an intentional effect of "selling flying we do not wish to perform."

I hold the Delta MEC in pretty high regard for their smarts. I tend to think this leaching of our flying to MidWest and Alaska is intended (or at least not seen as a threat). After all, look at the posts of those who are well connected, like Sailingfun and AlphaRomeo - they see no harm in this flying being transferred since Delta would not have continued to operate it at a loss.

I am trying to change their minds and the way they see scope. A better way to write scope is to realize from its inception that scope defines what a Delta pilot is. We are better off writing scope to be as broadly inclusive as we possibly can. Instead of seeking to limit aircraft, scope should be used to define what pilots perform that flying.

An example of some pretty darn good scope (I think) is what Republic Airlines pilots have got through IBT. It does not matter if the jet is a Republic, Shuttle America, Mid Atlantic, Chautauqua, or future subsidiary's certificate - it is flown by a pilot on their seniority list, right across certificates, holding companies and certificates.

Their scope will be tested with the acquisitions of MidWest and Frontier. We should watch and note what works, what does not work, and what we can learn from.

Delta scope going back to C2K was formed on US Air scope, which has not worked very well. It is my hope in C2012 we radically reconsider how we write scope and instead of excluding & limiting flying, we instead seek to include flying. Ultimately I'd like to see a one line scope section "all Delta system flying is performed by Delta pilots." Obviously that will not happen, but we need to compare our language against a pure benchmark.

Maybe realizing that pay increases dont mean a damn thing if your unemployed? How about a scope clause that goes along the lines of any plane associated with the company, a holding company, or the holding company's sister company, or any airplane being flown that will produce revenue for the company needs to be flown by the pilots on your seniority list

I guess I need to break this down even further.

1. Does every flight on every airline in every market belong to Delta pilots?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then good luck with that.

3. If the answer to 1 is no, then tell me how Midwest flying is any different than American, United, etc. flying?

4. If you can formulate an answer to 3, then tell me how one penny of flying that Midwest does ends up in Richard Anderson's hands.

5. If you can't trace that penny to Delta, then explain the motivation for Delta to help their competitors.

You make these emotional statements like I see no harm in "our" flying being transferred when that is completely false. I see harm in "our" flying being transferred. You just need to define what "our" flying is. Delta has gone into and out of many markets for as long as I can remember. This isn't transferred Delta flying, this is normal capitalism working. I understand we all want our airline to be aggressive and dominate every market, but that is a management function and not a labor function.

You seem to completely ignore the facts of the situation and wallow in demagoguery and populism. By the way, I hate puppies and kittens too.

I agree with you about the Republic contract.

ALPA National legal has left holes in a number of airline contract. Midwests contract was approved by ALPA legal and even taken to arbitration. After reading the decision even a pilot could tell we didn't have a chance of winning.

I'm thinking ALPA National cannot handling contract administration. What's the most important part of a union (or association)?

Teamsters, you're up.

Show the industry how you handle a merger, scope and contract negotiations at the New Republic.

Part 1

Alpha - you are correct, it all depends on the definition. Lets look at this another way.

When Delta Airlines, did a stock swap to acquire Northwest, was there a debate on whether that was "our" flying? Was there a debate on whether we should merge with Northwest?

Of course not, we somehow innately knew that 747's and A330's were "our" flying and we proceeded with a merger, not knowing how the details were going to be worked out. We first set on a correct course of action and knew the details would be ironed out by sheer will and momentum.

Now contrast this with a much smaller issue, recapturing 300 pilots at Compass. In contract to Northwest, everyone demands to know with great specificity every distinct detail of integration, pass benefits, pay rates and contractual terms. Despite sending out very detailed proposals that answer the "how" the questioners initially write back "outstanding proposal" then a week later they write back the same question - "how ?"

So I've begun thinking the question is actually "why?" because I've already answered the "how ?" The answer "why" is the same answer as to "why" Comair, or ASA, were distinct from Northwest when Delta Inc. went on a buying spree.

The easy answer given from those in the know is that our scope did not require that ASA and Comair be merged. After all those in the know had been present for some last minute gerrymandering of ALPA's definition of "operational integration" as well as present when Delta scope was written. So we come back to the "why?" In this case it was the intent to keep flying and pilots OUT of the Delta system. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed and that remains the problem.

The "how" you seek depends directly on how you choose to define Delta flying.

Back before B Scale, then outsourcing, back in the early days of our union we thought it imperative that all of an airline system's flying was to be performed by pilots on a single seniority list. All I advocate is explained, battle by battle, in our union's historical document "Flying the Line."

There is no doubt that today is a more complex world. But to achieve success we must first decide on the correct course of action and the details will work themselves out.

Part II:

1. Does every flight on every airline in every market belong to Delta pilots?
No
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then good luck with that.
Agreed
3. If the answer to 1 is no, then tell me how Midwest flying is any different than American, United, etc. flying?
Because MidWest flying feeds Delta AirLines
4. If you can formulate an answer to 3, then tell me how one penny of flying that Midwest does ends up in Richard Anderson's hands.
A premium passenger decides to enjoy more pleasant wintertime weather and books travel for him and his family from Milwaukee to Hawaii. It is hoped that with our code share, that passenger boards a Delta flight to Hawaii from LAX. Or, he might like Mexico and routes through LAX to Mexico on Alaska. Since the businessman loves mileage perks on the World's largest network, he more likely will regularly book his travel using Delta, Alaska, or one of our partners. Thus Delta believes they enjoy both the revenue from direct network feed (that we carry) and can retain the revenue across code share agreements with our partners for travel (that we do not carry, but we "sell" at a profit on other airlines). Mr. Anderson is an employee at the holding company which partners in these diverse transactions.

While I agree feed is good, we see repeated instances where Delta pulls out and a "partner" goes in, making the partner - say SkyWest - one of the most profitable airlines in North America last year, while Delta continues to retreat while throwing RJ's and low cost carriers in their wake.
5. If you can't trace that penny to Delta, then explain the motivation for Delta to help their competitors.
Delta does make money from the transaction. They claim huge benefits without the financial risk of operating the flight. Here are some quotes:
or taken to the extremeand like we have with our big airplane partners, I believe we should look at scope that addresses how many of our passengers are on the airplane. In the case of Compass, where 100% of the passengers hold a Delta ticket, how can you say that isn't "Delta" flying?

I know that's a radical view, but compromises are made from the synthesis of differing views into an evolved, moderate, platform that serves the interests of most people.

It my belief that as pilots and union members we should always seek to define our flying as broadly as possible.

Hi Bar,

As has happened more often recently, I agree.

Alpha is taking the scope to ridiculous hyperbole, and tries to deflect your question by starting out with the absurd "all flying is owned by Delta".

A much more reasonable place to start, for two people honestly discussing the merits of "this versus that" (rather than to deflect, disorient or delay) would be to start with the Delta code.

Quite simply, the starting point should be if the DL appears on a flight, then Delta pilots should fly it.

Does the DL code appear from LAX to where ever to Mexico? If the answer is yes, then a DL pilot should have that position.

But Nu, you ask, what about the AK code that also appears on the flight? So ask the question...would that flight be operating without one or the other partner? Since the route authorities, in this instance, belong to DL, via NWA, then the answer to that question is obvious.

But now we're left with the unplesant situation of the international code sharing, which back in the day, even Bob Crandal knew was a bad idea. That is a long term problem, which I suspect will leave our international route structure in tatters, the same as RJs have done to our domestic system.

The answer to the domestic question is a bit simpler. Ask yourself "would this flying exist without the DL code, marketing, and what not?". If the answer is no, then it should be a DAL pilot flying it.

Nu

Nu - exactly. One easy way, as you point out, is to follow the money.

The problem remains that this is the same argument the DCI pilots made back in 1999 when Comair and ASA were excluded from ALPA's merger and fragmentation policy. Both ASA and Comair were very profitable and it was hoped those profits would flow to Delta as a vertically integrated company like Rockefeller created Standard Oil to be. (Exxon/Mobil today)

But, ALPA decided it did not want to dilute the Delta pilot (contract/standards/etc...) and decided to exclude that flying. It wasn't just at Delta, every airline did it, US Air, United, Northwest, American, TWA and I think Eastern started the whole "outsourcing B scale is good" concept.

Now our exclusions are biting us in the butt. Every exception to our scope is a hole and I believe management over the past several days has demonstrated an ability to outsource A320 and 757 flying.

The MKE-LAX has been in the Midwest system for 15+ years. Midwest flew this route 3 times daily until TPG/NWA bought us.

This is not a Delta route.




ps. NWA has tried 3-4 times to bury Midwest and failed until they bought us.