VPR, do you want to take a job protection and get a money return on it?

I know what you are saying, but trading job/scope protections for money is something we need to get away from.

ALL DCI flying being performed by ALPA carriers.

No more DCI contracts signed or renewed.

Some sort of quid for who this protection was for.

AS sunset clause. Domestic scope clause

A change to the way section one is worded, stating that we fly all DL coded flying with a carve out for what is there and termination dates on it.

Stuff like that.

True, and has been shown to play out the same way time and time again!
It all comes down to $$$

Fly Safe.

Stunning news! A mainline sells a couple of wholly owned providers. Is this the first time that has happened? Was the sale of PCL a tactic to avoid a flow thru?

I'd be surprised if the flow was a prime factor in the decision. DL has too many RJ's in the system. At one time (pre NW transaction), many of those RJs were used to compete against each other. When you read the word "synergy" in the DL/NW merger announcement, you were thinking of overlapping management positions. How many counted RJs?

As long as DL gets the feed they want, which they will through the arrangements that has them buying, fueling, scheduling, and marketing the operation at the DCIs, they are wise to divest the administrative burden. A fee for departure set up simplifies the messy "human" part of the business.

In the Big Picture, the flow probably isn't the motivator for the sale. It is to us, because we don't worry about the Big Picture.

No probably not -the cost structure modification of the ASA's and ability terminate contracts for performance compliance is probably worth far more than the sale price.

Don't be fooled by the value of the flow though - the ability to roll back to 85 acft if its terminated together with the real job protection of the flow down is probably one of the strongest bits of Scope protection we have.

As to the messy human part, I hope you realize they would simplify that to your level just as quickly given the opportunity.

ACL-
I know what you are saying but it is somewhat twisted logic in this case.
We have a chance to cut out a large number of 76 seat jets.

Do you really want to start counting larger numbers of RJs as job protection for mainline?
If that's the case, why not INCREASE the number of 76 seaters at DCI? Not my idea of job protection.

Here's a novel idea - how about using Delta seniority list pilots to fly those jets?

I just spent 20 minutes talking to a Compass guy in the ALPA office. He had a lot of information. He said nobody saw it coming. The Mesaba ALPA guys are all gathered in the office. Lee Moak sent an MEC officer up to the Compass/Mesaba office to help them. There was a big conference call yesterday, and John Prater wasn't helpful. Moak is getting all 3 MECs together next week because of a deadline set by DL to address the flow. DL says the flow down must end. Compass was not prepared to handle the loss of pilots flowing this year. DL told Compass they would be hiring a lot of Compass pilots outside the flow.

Hmmm, There is a contract that addresses the flows. They don't have to do anything. There is no deadline other than a self imposed one.

If I was a little unclear, I prefer to do nothing.

It appears that the language in Section 1 required the removal the 36 overweight 175s and at least the seats out of a lot more. This is good enough for me. Reducing outsourced lift is an increase in job protection imo.

As I also said I would consider "trading" scope for scope as it were.

I consider the Alaska scope language worse than 70 and 76 seat scope. If you read the seat limits that apply to that code share not to mention the lack of or replacement of Delta or Delta branded narrowbody feed on the west cost I consider this worth making a trade of some kind.

Like a said a sunset on the Alaska code share and giving us our DC increases now would be a good start to looking at a trade on scope to me. I will add that I would want to see the permmited RJ count capped at current levels with no increase allowed based on mainline fleet count.

As you said a clause that no future DCI contract will be written or renewed would be fantastic however I don't think that there is anywhere near that kind of leverage here.

-vpr

If I didn't have 22 separate LOAs in my contract binder, I might agree with you.

Puleeze. Only 2 of them address CPZ/flows as far as I know. If more please cite the LOA numbers so I can read for myself