The show of pilots in the 01 contract when Dalpa called for picking was always nothing short of outstanding. The pickets at the GO were a huge success with hundreds of pilots attending. More then there were really room for. I guess you were not there.

 

And yet these horrible ALPA policies have produced the most hiring of any airline going through Chapter 11. Perhaps the most hiring of any legacy airline since 05. Might even be more hiring then SW. We have serious problems with scope. That is true. What you fail to acknowledge and DPA will have to acknowledge once they look at the numbers is that a airline has to have feed.
If tomorrow we could take back every single aircraft flying a Delta passenger do you think we will have a net gain or loss of jobs? If the job count stays neutral will we have a net gain or loss of pay. To many pilots over simplify scope to the point that every RJ is a job lost. That is simply not the case.
There are some feeder markets where flights would continue if we took the flying. There are many other markets where the flights would end because they would not be cost competitive. This is a brutal industry where a few dollars on a ticket price can silence your reservation phones. Now you have lost both the RJ flight and passengers feed to mainline flights. The end result is not good.
Scope has to have a balance regardless of if you like it or not. When we go into the next contract and try and take back scope or even hold the line your going to need solid cost data. Your going to need historical cost data on how much above a competitor you can be and still generate feed. Your going to need very smart people to refute the companies data which will have different numbers then yours. In the end a number will have to be generated on where the break point is regarding seats and range that define what belongs at the mainline and what belongs as feed.
We certainly had that line moved far to the right by John Malone(current DPA supporter) when he allowed the E170/175 at the mainline. That gross weight increase in LOA 46 was in my mind the biggest single failure of scope for Dalpa and the Delta pilots. I don't however have access to the cost data used to approve it.
I do know that with the smaller RJ's we can't operate them within a country mile of the contracted costs and we tried hard to show ways we could and never could come up with a solution. The net result of taking those jobs back no matter how they ran the numbers was always a loss of mainline jobs and a overall pay reduction. You gained some RJ flying in markets that could still sustain the flights at higher costs but lost mainline flying with the drop in feed.
This is why many thing people get absorbed into the union mindset and change from their elected positions. Its because they get a chance to see real data. They see real costs. They see reservation bookings and how quickly they drop off if price is above competitors. They gain a real world understanding that the average line pilot does not. If DPA becomes the union agent for Delta pilots they will go through the same change if they go through a proper due diligence and costing on the contract.
Where is my persona break on scope? Its the E170/175. I believe they should be at the mainline. I think we can operate them and not lose the flying because our costs are to high. Do I have any data to back that up. Not a damn thing. I will however rely on my fellow pilots who are elected to get that data and make the right choices be they Dalpa or DPA.

 

This is not really a DALPA / DPA subject, but eh'
The flying has been driven almost entirely by retirements, which were the result of management policies (coordinated with ALPA) to reduce costs. Several thousand more pilots would be on the property if Contract 2000 scope had not been modified.

We agree that Delta needs feed. We disagree that it must be staffed by someone other than a Delta pilot.ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS. Many of us have long proposed cost neutral recovery of flying, as outlined in the supporting argument for the "Compass Question." Bring them on board under CURRENT contracts. Then, if someone wants to bid that flying they can, if they choose not to, they don't. Let the Delta pilots perform Delta flying.

Any interesting fact is that Pinnacle recently revised guidance to its investors, stating that Delta was allowing them to pass through the cost of increased pilot working agreements. So, as they RJ pay goes up, it is now mother Delta that pays for that too.

The cost of ground support is the same, done by the same people. The only cost change in bringing this flying on board is getting rid of redundant management structures.Which is it? Do you know the cost data? Then don't accept the political justification.Thanks for clearing that up.

The "union" perspective should be unity. We can not have unity while we look around a meeting and guess who's jobs are going to be saved, or outsourced, by the Reps sitting there at the table. I enthusiastically support those who support my job, I want to recall those who want to outsource it. That's my personal break.

Delta pilots perform all Delta flying should be the goal. Sure, we will have to compromise, but we should always want perfect scope and work towards unity when the opportunity is there (like Compass was).

IMO - UNITY must come before economics.

 

Is this really a true statement? I'm no expert on our scope history, but I honestly don't remember a thing about scope being an issue when we were voting on C2K. Here's a synopsis of scope that I found posted on the DALPA Forum. What do you think? Is "scope for pay in C2K" the truth or has it become urban legend?
____________________________________________
Contract '96:

-There was a minimum number of mainline blocks. Embedded in this number was a minimum number of international wide body hours.
-The maximum number of seats that connection carriers could operate was 70.
-There was no limit on the number of these aircraft
-There was no limit on the weight of these aircraft as long as they were used in a passenger configuration. If they were used in a cargo config, then there was a weight restriction (70,000 lbs?)
-There was no restriction on the powerplant to be used.
-There were restrictions on the use of these aircraft: stage lengths, hubs etc
-ASA was allowed to continue operating up to 20 BAE 146 aircraft, or any replacement aircraft limited to 96 seats.

C2K changed the above by:

-Increasing all mainline block hours.
-Establishing a ratio of mainline block hours to all connection flying block hours
-there were resets if things slid backwards for Delta, and yes they triggered. In this case the company had to negotiate with ALPA. And this concept of ratios survived until Letter 51.
-Restricted the number of 70 seat jets to 53, with growth of another 25 (one for each 10000 hours of additional monthly mainline flying). These were part of the overall ratio of mainline to connection flying.
-Restrictions such as:
-Max weight for passenger configuration
-Hub to hub, stage length averages, etc
-ASA clause removed.

Letter 46 conceded:

-the number in the ratio, but not the ratio itself. In other words 46 allowed more RJ's, but not unlimited.
-allowed up to 125 70 seat RJ's. NOT, repeat NOT 76 seat RJ's
-lowered the number of mainline block hours

Letter 51:

-Eliminated the connection carrier ratios
-Eliminated the mainline line block hour requirements

RJ grievance? The one over the number of 76 seat jets after Letter 19? It was settled (by agreement between ALPA and management, not by the neutral) by allowing the company the number of jets they wanted if they would remove 6 seats from this increased number (but not all) of 76 seat jets if pilots were furloughed.

 

Sailing, why do we need to have nonstop service to small markets? An 88 can easily hit two markets on the way to a hub. It's how it used to be done, no?

And the CSGs of the world can easily be serviced by Dash 8-200/300s like CAL is doing or ATR 42s.

Or as I contend a MOB-CSG-ATL or MGM-CSG-ATL on 88s would be an excellent and welcomed replacement of 2 CRJ 200s doing the same route and making two blips in ATL and using 2 gates. The CRJs can be redeployed to BNA and do BNA-PNS and the like.

 

When I brought up the point about the conflict of interest between young and old, junior and senior in a previous post you said it was a very weak point since we are all Delta pilots. From your previous post I got the impression that you view conflicts of interests within a pilot group as being of little significance.

 

Sailing,

You make it sound as though all of the flying done by DCI is profitable for Delta. I don't think that's the case at all.

I remember when the infamous Fred Reid described the 50 seater as "self financing". That may have been the case when oil was cheap, but as oil has more than tripled it's a money loser. Additionally DCI's pilot cost have gone up as their pilots accrue more longevity with their carrier(s). My strong suspicion is there are precious few markets served by the 50 seat RJ that are revenue positive.

I think Delta would like to get rid of a whole bunch of them, but they are locked into contracts that preclude that.

 

Your point was you wanted a union for each of the pilot groups or something. If I remember correctly? So I probably said no, bad idea. The only thing consistent with the pilot group is that they are Delta pilots, hence one union to represent all is required and not one to represent senior DTW A330 As hired between 1986 and 1987 versus NYC 7ER Bs hired directly into the aircraft. It's nonsensical.

So if that's what you're referring to then my previous post and this post are absolutely consistent.

If you negotiate for the benefit of one group it can and probably will be detrimental to another. Therefore, you don't favor one over the other... as in we're all Delta pilots no matter where they sit or how long they've sat there.

For example, a pay raise in exchange for a scope sale would be good for a senior pilot not immediately effected by a scope sale but immediately detrimental for a pilot beneath them all the way to those who are furloughed. To reiterate, a pay raise for one pilots family could cost another pilots family their sole income. Not acceptable.

The mission is not to lose a job from pilot 1 to pilot plug and then raise the pay from there. You can negotiate differing pay tables based on the philosophy size matters or mission type matters and so on if the objective is fairness, but you don't negotiate for the benefit of one pilot and force another pilot out of a job.

You agree?

 

A rare occurrence, when 88 and I agree. In C2K we got both higher compensation and better scope.

In letter 46,51 we got lower compensation and worse scope.

In the JCBA we got higher compensation and better scope.

If you negotiate from strength, you gain. If you negotiate from weakness (bankruptcy) you lose. This ain't rocket science.

 

Your anti-alpa bias is showing. Unfortunately facts tend to disagree with your "recollection". The "union" didn't end the flow thru. An enhanced flow thru was not negotiated under the 03/04?? contract. CAL took the pilots who had class dates scheduled before 9/11 (schindlers list). The original flow thru sunset once coex was spun off (under the provisions of the original flow thru agreement). I enjoy reading your posts but please don't let your bias unfactually tarnish hard working union volunteers.