Delta Pilots Association
01-31-2011 | 07:04 AM
#4291
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
From: Top
The MEC Chair discussed scope in his video. He didn't go into great detail, but it's unfair to say that Scope is a forbidden word.
01-31-2011 | 07:10 AM
#4292
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
01-31-2011 | 09:14 AM
#4294
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 169
From: window seat
01-31-2011 | 11:49 AM
#4295
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Boss
If you've read Section 1, you know it addresses threats from all quadrants: RJ's, other large jet operators (domestic), foreign airlines, and alter-ego airlines ("Song", "Ted", etc). You also know it's weaker than it should be. What few seem willing to admit is that it protects more than most.
The Visceral Venters need a villain to blame for the erosion of our Scope, and ALPA is it. If only we'd manned-up, shut 'er down, and positioned snipers in key positions overlooking Ft Widget, none of this would've happened! ALPA sold us out!
They don't want to blame the system or the process. Those are difficult things to study, understand, or accept. It's easier to blame fellow pilots or the staff we hire to support us.
Our Scope is where it is because we don't have full control over the system or the process. We understand that we should try to control as much of them as possible, and that's what leads us to where we are now - A small group believe the same lawyers and advisors that convinced AMFA to man-up at Northwest in 2005, and PFAA to take the the hard line the next year, will lead us to a tougher, meaner, cheaper way to gain "full control of the process!" (I won't spoil how those movies ended. Look 'em up)
The rest of us believe we gain more control over the process (maximizing gains in good times; minimizing losses in bad times) through ALPA. It isn't perfect, or even near-perfect...but it's better than Brand X, Brand Y, or Brand DPA. We believe the fellow pilots we elected when they tell us that taking the AMFA strategy would have yielded AMFA results. Look over the fence and tell us how the hardliners at APA have done over the past 5-years.
Experts on Scope who weren't at the table - and I sure as heck wasn't - aren't experts on Scope. But we can look around and see RJs being parked, mainline jets coming back online, Shamrock flying someone else's flights, and joint ventures that yield more flying for us...and accept the word of the pilots we elect to direct our experts, that we're doing ok, and making a difference. All of them, and I mean ALL of them, want better Scope, more pay, better work rules, and better benefits. No exceptions. The rub is how we get there. Apparently, 1,531 Delta pilots think there's a better way. Good for them. When their rally is over, and it's time to get busy on our next contract, I hope all of them will display that same energy to help.
Right now, all they're doing is showing management how divided we are.
01-31-2011 | 02:37 PM
#4297
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 169
From: window seat
Just to quickly address this point:
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
01-31-2011 | 03:01 PM
#4298
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Just to quickly address this point:
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
And Splash, I'm well aware of all the portions of section 1. The Air France JV was well done... Alaska on the other hand was done with poor foresight that even I could see would come back to bite us the first time I read it.
Other portions of it are fine for the most part.
I'll address this further later. Chow time.
01-31-2011 | 03:10 PM
#4299
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Just to quickly address this point:
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
01-31-2011 | 04:30 PM
#4300
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Just to quickly address this point:
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
50 seaters are being parked, but the mothership is still adding new 70 seat RJ outsourced low bid flying at at least two different airlines the (skywest and republic "air groups"). Some of the smaller RJ's are only "being parked" because of their age and current economics, while larger RJ's are still being added. Those RJ's are common type with 100-118 seaters and our scope is the only thing keeping that from happening. That is where the trend vector comes into play. But rather than focusing on the current economics of the smaller RJ's, I think it is warranted to focus instead on the virtually uninterrupted increase in larger RJ outsourcing over several contracts at almost every major airline, most of which are ALPA.
In fact, the better Section 1's out there among majors are from the in house unions of Southwest and American and pre-ALPA CAL.
Does that mean it is "all ALPA's fault"? No, as it is a complex and integrated issue on all levels. But ALPA is a very large part of the process that has gotten us to where we are and so it is reasonable to expect ALPA to be scrutinized for not only their past role in outsourcing blunders but with everyone else's next Section 1.
Again, it isn't just a matter of zeroing in on what ALPA has done wrong in the past. That is part of it, but it would be nice if ALPA National and DALPA in it's entirety would agressively start admitting the mistakes of the past and sharing with us the plans to fix those problems in the future. Instead of that, the preferred methods are to completely ignore it if possible and barely mention it only when they absolutely have to. In addition to that, a significant portion of that share of barely mentioning it merely proclaims the success of the current Section 1 on two counts: a.) it could be worse and b.) 50 seat RJ's are being parked so all is well.
That bell rings hollower every time its rung.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
