DAL Top End Scope
05-09-2012 | 10:31 AM
#31
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
No. I am suggesting it might be the least bad option. Larger than 76 would be a "burn the house down" fight. A limited number of more 76 seaters does not rise to this level - provided all other areas of section one are vastly improved.
I am worried about section 1 in total. We all know the threats of RJs. Past mistakes put us where we are today. I would hate to look back in 10 years and realize that we made the same mistakes with codeshares and JV's that we have previously made with RJs.
Lets look ahead and close all the gaping deficiencies of our pathetic section 1. If I were King I would have all Delta passengers be flown by Delta Pilots - all, 100%. But that ain't gonna happen - we have to play the cards we have.
Getting rid of all the 76 seaters while allowing more and more passengers to be flown on Alaska, AF, KLM, and who knows what other contractual sophistry our management can come up with is not a wise move in my mind.
Having DCI fly 76 seaters sucks, I get it, but we (DALPA) already screwed that up . I was furloughed while DCI was hiring like crazy - but it is done, lets try to prevent some future screw-ups. Lets prevent the 2015 DAL new hire from suffering the same fate via JV, codeshare etc. Plugging the scope leak at 76 seats and not addressing the other weaknesses of section 1 would be like plugging a hole in boat by removing a different plug - allowing a different leak. It would do no good.
I am against all outsourcing. You show me how to do it and I will be right there beside you! But lets cover all outsourcing - not just the RJs, which I admit so far have been the most detrimental to our career. The future threats also concern me greatly.
Scoop
05-09-2012 | 10:54 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Jack,
No. I am suggesting it might be the least bad option. Larger than 76 would be a "burn the house down" fight. A limited number of more 76 seaters does not rise to this level - provided all other areas of section one are vastly improved.
I am worried about section 1 in total. We all know the threats of RJs. Past mistakes put us where we are today. I would hate to look back in 10 years and realize that we made the same mistakes with codeshares and JV's that we have previously made with RJs.
Lets look ahead and close all the gaping deficiencies of our pathetic section 1. If I were King I would have all Delta passengers be flown by Delta Pilots - all, 100%. But that ain't gonna happen - we have to play the cards we have.
Getting rid of all the 76 seaters while allowing more and more passengers to be flown on Alaska, AF, KLM, and who knows what other contractual sophistry our management can come up with is not a wise move in my mind.
Having DCI fly 76 seaters sucks, I get it, but we (DALPA) already screwed that up . I was furloughed while DCI was hiring like crazy - but it is done, lets try to prevent some future screw-ups. Lets prevent the 2015 DAL new hire from suffering the same fate via JV, codeshare etc. Plugging the scope leak at 76 seats and not addressing the other weaknesses of section 1 would be like plugging a hole in boat by removing a different plug - allowing a different leak. It would do no good.
I am against all outsourcing. You show me how to do it and I will be right there beside you! But lets cover all outsourcing - not just the RJs, which I admit so far have been the most detrimental to our career. The future threats also concern me greatly.
Scoop
No. I am suggesting it might be the least bad option. Larger than 76 would be a "burn the house down" fight. A limited number of more 76 seaters does not rise to this level - provided all other areas of section one are vastly improved.
I am worried about section 1 in total. We all know the threats of RJs. Past mistakes put us where we are today. I would hate to look back in 10 years and realize that we made the same mistakes with codeshares and JV's that we have previously made with RJs.
Lets look ahead and close all the gaping deficiencies of our pathetic section 1. If I were King I would have all Delta passengers be flown by Delta Pilots - all, 100%. But that ain't gonna happen - we have to play the cards we have.
Getting rid of all the 76 seaters while allowing more and more passengers to be flown on Alaska, AF, KLM, and who knows what other contractual sophistry our management can come up with is not a wise move in my mind.
Having DCI fly 76 seaters sucks, I get it, but we (DALPA) already screwed that up . I was furloughed while DCI was hiring like crazy - but it is done, lets try to prevent some future screw-ups. Lets prevent the 2015 DAL new hire from suffering the same fate via JV, codeshare etc. Plugging the scope leak at 76 seats and not addressing the other weaknesses of section 1 would be like plugging a hole in boat by removing a different plug - allowing a different leak. It would do no good.
I am against all outsourcing. You show me how to do it and I will be right there beside you! But lets cover all outsourcing - not just the RJs, which I admit so far have been the most detrimental to our career. The future threats also concern me greatly.
Scoop
As you say we need to prevent making the same mistakes again that were made in the past. Currently half of all domestic Delta flying is outsourced and being flown by thousands of pilots that should be on the Delta seniority list. My position remains the same, not one more large RJ (including 70/76 seaters). Enough is enough is enough is enough. Stop the insanity, stop the cycle.
05-09-2012 | 12:27 PM
#34
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Gloopy,
Referencing what I made red above - I am saying lets improve our section 1overall. I guess you are not counting the Alaska code-share and JV's as "domestic lift outsourced" - I do. Other than that I'm with you, I guess I am a little more pessimistic.
The plan you lay out above that I bolded above sounds a lot like the APA plan of the last 8 years - how did that work out? The dig your heels in and fight it out sounds great, hell I am ready for a strike as I have a second job and some decent savings but I don't think it is in the cards. More importantly looking at all the constraints that we as a pilot group are under - I don't think it would work. I think the threat of a job action could be valuable and while we might win a few battles I don't see us winning the war so to speak. And while winning a Pyrrhic victory might feel good, I think there are better ways to go.
My most important requirement for this contract is to hold the Scope line at 76 seats. Relaxing this would essentially start the doomsday clock for this occupation - because if we can't hold Scope under our current conditions we never will. I would love to reduce 76 seaters but I just don't see it happening.
As far as production balance, yeah the 50 seaters going away may help with the production balance but as George referenced we are already getting clobbered in LAX by Alaska. Hell george was even displaced to SLC.
To me the best metric of our section 1 is how many of the passengers who buy a DAL ticket are flown by DAL pilots. If we can keep this number increasing at all times it would be great for all the DAL Pilots, especially the junior guys.
Scoop
Referencing what I made red above - I am saying lets improve our section 1overall. I guess you are not counting the Alaska code-share and JV's as "domestic lift outsourced" - I do. Other than that I'm with you, I guess I am a little more pessimistic.
The plan you lay out above that I bolded above sounds a lot like the APA plan of the last 8 years - how did that work out? The dig your heels in and fight it out sounds great, hell I am ready for a strike as I have a second job and some decent savings but I don't think it is in the cards. More importantly looking at all the constraints that we as a pilot group are under - I don't think it would work. I think the threat of a job action could be valuable and while we might win a few battles I don't see us winning the war so to speak. And while winning a Pyrrhic victory might feel good, I think there are better ways to go.
My most important requirement for this contract is to hold the Scope line at 76 seats. Relaxing this would essentially start the doomsday clock for this occupation - because if we can't hold Scope under our current conditions we never will. I would love to reduce 76 seaters but I just don't see it happening.
As far as production balance, yeah the 50 seaters going away may help with the production balance but as George referenced we are already getting clobbered in LAX by Alaska. Hell george was even displaced to SLC.
To me the best metric of our section 1 is how many of the passengers who buy a DAL ticket are flown by DAL pilots. If we can keep this number increasing at all times it would be great for all the DAL Pilots, especially the junior guys.
Scoop
I understand your logic, but in my view the premise is based on having our expectations completely managed regarding scope. The NMB could NOT call us unreasonable. If it came down to a public battle before a strike, the public would be completely behind us fighting to reverse outsourcing. Outsourcing hits every working American right in their spinal chord...it's everyone's vulnerability. All it would require is our union to portray it that way, and therein lies the rub. Have you noticed that not one single union document refers to our outsourcing as outsourcing? They call it DCI, JV's, code share...but NEVER outsourcing. Why is that? I know the answer but it doesn't matter. It only matters whether we members will allow our expectations to be badly managed and accept the utterly false premise that a gain in one section of scope requires a loss in another part of scope. This is Bu!!$h!t. Everything is on our side on this...the NMB and public opinion. If we don't fight for this with everything going our way, we won't fight for anything.
Where am I wrong here man...what am I missing?
Carl
05-09-2012 | 12:44 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
05-09-2012 | 01:13 PM
#36
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
When I read this from you Scoop, it gets me worried because I know you really get this stuff. Take a look at this from a very big picture view. Why does plugging all the holes in our top end scope require concessions on bottom end scope? Who the hell made that rule? Why can't our scope be nothing but gains on the top, middle and bottom? Our largest and profitable competitor has it, thus the NMB couldn't call our request to begin the process of moving toward SWAPA scope unreasonable.
I understand your logic, but in my view the premise is based on having our expectations completely managed regarding scope. The NMB could NOT call us unreasonable. If it came down to a public battle before a strike, the public would be completely behind us fighting to reverse outsourcing. Outsourcing hits every working American right in their spinal chord...it's everyone's vulnerability. All it would require is our union to portray it that way, and therein lies the rub. Have you noticed that not one single union document refers to our outsourcing as outsourcing? They call it DCI, JV's, code share...but NEVER outsourcing. Why is that? I know the answer but it doesn't matter. It only matters whether we members will allow our expectations to be badly managed and accept the utterly false premise that a gain in one section of scope requires a loss in another part of scope. This is Bu!!$h!t. Everything is on our side on this...the NMB and public opinion. If we don't fight for this with everything going our way, we won't fight for anything.
Where am I wrong here man...what am I missing?
Carl
I understand your logic, but in my view the premise is based on having our expectations completely managed regarding scope. The NMB could NOT call us unreasonable. If it came down to a public battle before a strike, the public would be completely behind us fighting to reverse outsourcing. Outsourcing hits every working American right in their spinal chord...it's everyone's vulnerability. All it would require is our union to portray it that way, and therein lies the rub. Have you noticed that not one single union document refers to our outsourcing as outsourcing? They call it DCI, JV's, code share...but NEVER outsourcing. Why is that? I know the answer but it doesn't matter. It only matters whether we members will allow our expectations to be badly managed and accept the utterly false premise that a gain in one section of scope requires a loss in another part of scope. This is Bu!!$h!t. Everything is on our side on this...the NMB and public opinion. If we don't fight for this with everything going our way, we won't fight for anything.
Where am I wrong here man...what am I missing?
Carl
Carl,
You are not wrong at all - I admire your passion and think that if more of the really senior guys felt like you it might be possible. But that is my concern - most guys are not as concerned about Scope as those of us on these forums.
I am 100% for voting down a contract that is concessionary. I guess it comes down to what we all see as concessionary.
I really do hope it works out more like you and Gloopy and Jack are hoping for.
Scoop
05-09-2012 | 01:23 PM
#37
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
From: Professional Expat
Just an extra bit of info to add to the mix......
You won't see Virgin Oz adding any new aircraft or increasing frequency to the US, any time soon. The previous management were so inept, they negotiated lease terms on the 777's that are bordering on insane.
You won't see Virgin Oz adding any new aircraft or increasing frequency to the US, any time soon. The previous management were so inept, they negotiated lease terms on the 777's that are bordering on insane.
05-09-2012 | 03:08 PM
#38
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Lots going on.
DAL his issues in Asia, domestic and Europe.
Japan wants to kill our Fifth Freedom rights by marganlizing them, EK wants to buy part of AF and we must make sure that AMR does not become a powerhouse we need to deal with down the road.
05-09-2012 | 03:35 PM
#39
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Well, one thing to remember is we (speaking for the group) talk openly about what we would consider while what we want and want demaded is 100% scope and the elimination of domestic codeshares.
Some will consider transforming 1 70 seater to 76 seat and retaining the 255 limit is unacceptable and an automatic no vote. Others say I'll consider it if...
The goal still seems to be the same, we want a scope clause that would make Delta sick, maybe even ALPA National sick, but not us.
Some will consider transforming 1 70 seater to 76 seat and retaining the 255 limit is unacceptable and an automatic no vote. Others say I'll consider it if...
The goal still seems to be the same, we want a scope clause that would make Delta sick, maybe even ALPA National sick, but not us.
05-10-2012 | 08:36 AM
#40
New Hire
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Left Seat - Right Coast
Its not just 50 and 76 seaters Delta wants. They are pushing hard to put 86 seaters and up to 11500 lbs MTOW at DCI (read Bombardier C-Series). I think the early and hard push is to get scope relief in exchange for $$$$ and put large RJ's at the bottom feeders.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/re...-proposal.html
Bombardier CSeries Gets Deal While Qatar Goes on Hold - Bloomberg
Bombardier list a "major network carrier" as the launch customer for the C-series with a firm order for 10 airframes and a delivery date of 2013
This is pure conjecture on my part but seems to me where this whole mess is going.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/re...-proposal.html
Bombardier CSeries Gets Deal While Qatar Goes on Hold - Bloomberg
Bombardier list a "major network carrier" as the launch customer for the C-series with a firm order for 10 airframes and a delivery date of 2013
This is pure conjecture on my part but seems to me where this whole mess is going.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
