Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Carl;
It simple, I used that phrase to tie your statement about allowing only pilots that have interviewed on to the list.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I get confused because I could have sworn you supported the CPS flow which did just the opposite.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Making sure that we act like a true association, and take care of our fellow members is what I am advocating.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

You want to call it an SLI, but what I am referring to is, simply doing more than we have in the past, and rallying behind the pilots from within our association, and not those who are not.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Like I have also said, you could go down a SLI route, but the fact is that; 1) It is our flying, 2) we are not buying anyone, and 3) they would have no leverage, so even if you partook on that path, the tenants of the debate are totally different.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I advocate more of a agreement between DCI carriers and DALPA. Like I said, trying to iron out the "how" is what people want to focus on, but in reality, they need to first focus on the "if."

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

If we want to recapture said flying, what does it say about us, that we would cheer fellow ALPA pilots hitting the street?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

To me that is in reality the root cause of many of our issues.

Originally Posted by satchip

ACL, you are focusing on aircraft in your scope arguments. I think one of biggest mistakes we made was to focus on aircraft. Our section one should focus on flying and hours. That's how are manning is determined. If I could waive a magic wand, I would scope all flying over 100 miles as ours. Let the company figure out what plane to put on the route. Focusing on planes and seat numbers is what got us E170s and CRJ 900s flying 4+ hour segments.

Originally Posted by Sniper

Delta can make $ on passengers by connecting them to their much larger network, including small cities like ROA or MYT that can't support a NB with a desirable frequency levels or international destinations like TLV or NCE - the 170 leg is a $ loser, but the profit on the connection more than offsets the loss (or that's the theory).



Part of the issue with a '1 hour' scope is that it would prevent Delta from developing a market (say SLC-BIL) to make it big enough to support a mainline NB, prevent route flexibility (flying to say JAC in the summer with RJ's and using 319's in the winter) as well as deprive DL of capturing the highly profitable 'small markets', like ROA or GJT (MRY is scheduled for exactly 1 hour from LAX, incidentally). While DL could fill a 320 to ROA or GJT, the connection time would likely increase as the frequency decreased, which might drive passengers to the competition. The DCA-LGA-BOS shuttle is the best example. Today (5/4/11), every DCA-LGA flight is an EMB-175, but every BOS-LGA flight is an A-319. I can only assume that there is more traffic on the BOS-LGA route than the DCA-LGA route, but DL wants to maintain the hourly frequency on both, so they've 'right-sized' the equipment to the routes.

Its tough to figure out a way to ensure that Delta pilots do Delta flying, while also allowing Delta the opportunity to capture premium smaller markets or have the flexibility to increase frequencies. Clearly, something must be done. Perhaps a 'time limit scope' is an area that DALPA or a new DPA should explore.

What about a % scope, ie, only 25% of all Passenger Seat Miles operated with Delta code on them may be operated by non-Delta seniority list pilots? Whether it be an Air France flight from JFK-CDG or an ASA flight from DTW-BOS, this '% scope' would allow Delta flexibility to operate RJ's to develop smaller markets, use RJ's to capture small market premium traffic, or use code shares to increase the network, while protecting DALPA pilot positions on both the smallest gauge aircraft (DC-9) and the largest (747). You'd have to use PSM's, rather than flights, b/c you could easily eliminate a large portion of the wide-body flying if you tied it to flights (one 747 flight = five DC-9 flights). Just an idea, though if it was a good one, it would have already been thought of.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I see. Step 1 = Get seat economics to improve. Step 2 = ??? Leverage ??? Blah ??? something??? Step 3 = Seat economics changed.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

No Carl, first step is to decide to make it a priority to, over time have all DAL coded flying flown on our list. Once you get that part taken care of, which will require probably more time that you have here, you can change the economics of said flying. You CANNOT do it while you are competing with the flying being flow off the list at a current rates.

Originally Posted by tsquare

My job.. and your job is to fly airplanes.. period. It is management's job to buy those airplanes.. deploy those airplanes.. sell seats on those airplanes... market those seats.. and most importantly, to make money with those assets. Pay me for being a pilot.. period. That's what I do..

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Never happen. There is no way a pilot for Delta Air Lines should accept flying at pay rates currently being accepted at DCI. N.F.W.!!

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

For the pilots to decide, but isn't that statement what got us to start outsourcing in the first place?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

...Either way, ALPA pilots will be on the street, and we will be cheering. That does not impress me. Helping fellow ALPA aviators out should not just be desired, but expected.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I echoed what Alfa wrote; We should champion DCI carriers merging with each other. We should champion all flying be performed by our list, and we should champion taking care of fellow ALPA pilots; whatever that action may be, but sitting there and cheering their demise is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Sniper

Fair enough.

I have found that the general (painting with VERY broad strokes here) negotiating stance of DALPA has been to work with management, vs. say APA, who has taken a more adversarial stance. The part of my post that leaves you 'scratching your head' reflects on a scope idea tailored to help the company and the pilots. Perhaps that is part of the source of DALPA's failures (setting goals that work to attain more than just 'flying planes' with negotiations), or even an underlying reason that there is a drive for DPA.

Originally Posted by scambo1

The best news is that DALPA may be willing to push back on RAH.

Originally Posted by scambo1

They already have on Delta Biz jets.