DAL Top End Scope
 

In light of the recurring rumor that a Scope trade-off is being negotiated, I thought it would be informative to pin down exactly what is wrong with our Top End Scope: JV/Codeshare/Revenue Sharing/Cabotage/Foreign Ownership/etc.

It appears that we all have a good grasp on RJ scope and that's good. However, I've noticed that pilots are a lot less clear on our upper end scope protections, or lack thereof. If we are going to be engaging in some sort of Scope trade, then we need to understand the value of the pieces in play. This way we'll be able to better evaluate any potential risk vs. reward of playing ball on "just a few more 76 seaters" or whatever the offer ends up being.

I'm the first to admit that I don't know enough to make an informed decision on that end of the Scope spectrum. With the resident experts around here (ACL, George, Gloopy, Sailing, FTB . . .) I'm hoping we can put together a plain English version of our biggest threats and what would constitute a worthwhile trade.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm loathe to accept 1 single more RJ, but if the payback is so significant on the top end that it makes good business sense to patch the "gaping holes" that I keep hearing about, then I think we owe it to ourselves to understand what we're dealing with here.

I'm going through the live contract myself. In the meantime, can someone write up a concise, plain English description of the following:

1. JV's: How many do we currently have? In 100 words or less, describe "production balance". What loopholes current exist that mgmt could use to make Delta pilots obsolete? How can we patch these loopholes?

2. Codeshare: GOL comes to mind. How do we ensure that Delta continues to fly south of MIA? What other codeshare loopholes need fixing?

3. Revenue Sharing: What is it? And does it negatively impact Delta pilots? How?

4. Foreign Ownership: What's the big threat? How are we limiting the downside? Again with GOL and AeroMexico being partially owned by DAL, I see this as potentially getting out of hand. Virgin is another often-talked about player in the mix. How do we remain relevant internationally?

Good idea to look into this. I'll read with interest. George usually does a great job of addressing this throughout the L&G, but ther is always more to be learned.

Off the top of my head

One "real" JV and that is AF. Virgin Australia is not quite a JV but it is different than the AF JV in the fact that AF is profit sharing and VA is revenue sharing. Because of this difference there is no need for a production balance. Any type of JV that is not "profit" sharing is only required to hold a floor of frequency for each party. Flying, by any metric does not need to be grown equally. Its the way its currently written, and is a major hole.

Domestic Codes Shares need our approval. I do not believe International CS's like GOL, China Eastern, China Southern, etc do not.

Come to think of it, we CS with HAA intra-island and I do not believe that needed our approval. I will have to look that up, but do not recall having to approve that.

Revenue sharing is a fall back type of agreement in JV's Read above. This type of agreement does not trigger our language requiring a Production Balance.

First per the PWA DAL is allowed to own 49% or less of a foreign carrier before any of our provisions kick in; 30% for domestic operators. Second, the biggest issue with FO is the fact that labor law, and therefore our PWA does not effect those companies and or pilot groups. Labor law is limited by our boarders.

Just think of a AF, KLM, AZ DAL merger. All unionized pilot groups, all with separate labor laws in four different countries. All we have is the ability to force DAL to negotiate on our behalf within the parameters we set in the PWA.

Furthermore, a foreign company only has to comply with labor contracts for workers here, not overseas. Nail that down, along with holding company language and there might be a way to not get slayed in the process. It also is way IFALPA and our relationships with these other pilot groups is so very important. If you think RJ whipsaw was bad, this would be 100 times worse.

Right now we have a six part, soon to be eight party agreement between all the major pilot unions in the JV and their respective companies. Its a start, but it does not cover everything. It basically states that everyone recognizes the other labor unions.

The way we stay relevant is to push for better international labor law, and holding company language that works for a type of deal that would have a holding company owning all of these airlines, but on the most basic level operate them on separate certificates within their respective countries. Cabotage also will require them to hold these certificates on the respective countries as well.

In the end, one post or series of posts cannot fully explain the effects that this will have.

For this contract we need protections for any sort of JV, Interline or CS agreement. Sunset or near sunset provisions on DCI, Holding Company protection that works inside and outside of the US, and a rider that forces DAL to have our agreement on any sort of flying that will put the DAL or successors code on the flights that we fly, previously flew, or would logically fly.

Leine,

You bring up some very good points. My criteria for improving Scope is simple (the following numbers are notional): If for example we currently fly 65% of the passengers who purchase a DAL ticket and after the upcoming contract we will improve to say 70% or 75% with locked in minimums then we have improved Scope. Could this happen with more 76 seaters - yes.

The more passengers that fly on DAL metal - the quicker the stagnation will end. While it especially burns me to see DCI flying so many of our passengers to some very big cities, in reality it is really no different than Alaska or Air France, etc flying our passengers.

George is really the guy who can shed some light on the top end scope - he is normally all over it.

Scoop

Maybe I'm naive but...

I can't believe what I'm reading! How eroded has this industry become because of statements just like that?

The worst part is that there may be people from this thread on the radio broadcasting snide remarks about all the RJs you see lined up for takeoff ahead of you.

You want to talk strategy? Try this: Don't give up one more aircraft or seat in scope. Convince your company that they should right size the aircraft to the market. An E-190 sized aircraft makes good sense in certain markets. Flown by pilots at your airline, aircraft like that will help return this industry to stronger proffitts. If a 76 seater is truely needed in certain markets then it should be a good fit to put a 175 where needed as it is a common type with the 190 and shares 90 percent common parts with the 190. It appears to be working well for Air Canada. Then, begin the process of removing the 50 seat jet. It never really made sense and it certainly doesn't now with fuel costing as much as it does. Explore the possibilities of larger turboprops.

Last and most importantly, please don't consider the idea of giving up additional scope an option.

I'm looking forward to hearing your constructive ideas on how to increase proffittability and raise top end wages to what they should be.

Why Lein started this thread was to talk about the top end scooe issues, all of which are far more unique and as far as I know new territory. It's a global airline operating in a global market with friends and alliances that we agree are critical and can be mutually beneficial... as long as our scope clause handles this correctly.

Right now, we're not getting the warm fuzzies. We have a problem of seemingly being replaced by AF/KLM. Just look at ATL-CDG. Hence, the need to figure this out and provide the correct solution.

The benefit of having this done properly is it could mean international growth. Having it wrong means the opposite. We have no intention of burning the candle at either end much less at both. Swapping 70 seaters for 76 seaters is a disgusting thought, but, as Lein correctly said we have to consider the section 1 package. It would be nuts to say no more converting 70 seaters to 76 seaters and lose out on the top end. That's all he means by that and I think that's wise to review everything in its entirety.

That said, I hooe we push for a section 1 that makes the company sick, not us.

Wheel,

I like the way you are thinking but do not think it is that easy. I think you might be forgetting about the long term contracts DAL is currently stuck with. Our previous management team went bonkers locking us into very long term contracts with the DCI airlines. This was an agreed to contract so DAL can not just stop flying these aircraft. Thus DAL needs to entice the DCI airlines into letting us out of our contracts.

One way to do this is to trade. A lot less 50 seaters for a few more 70 seaters may be the "least bad" option we currently have. Another option the pilot group may prefer is to just wait it out, holding the line on Scope where it is now. Long term this might be the best option for the Pilot group but only if our management teams would not then exploit other current Scope weaknesses such as codeshares, JVs etc?

One thing a lot of guys don't take into account is that our Scope currently sucks. we are starting in a big hole whether forced into it via BK or Sold out in prior negotiations it does not matter.

As far as selling Scope - THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE BASICALLY DON'T OWN SCOPE TO SELL IT.


Scoop

I appreciate the responses. It is just a little sickening to think that there is more scope relief (of any kind) on the horizon. I understand that there are issues to be solved with some of the wide body code shares that are taking place. However, please just make sure that we are not gaining 10 wide body lines at the cost of adding 30 76 seat RJs. That is exatly how the first 76 seat 175s and CRJ 900s first appeared if I remember correctly. Wasn't it 3 76 seaters allowed on property for every 1 757 aquired? Please don't let that happen again.

No, it wasn't 3 76 seaters for 1 757. There is a formula to determine the allowable number of 76 seaters. It is based off the number of airplanes in the mainline fleet. We are under that trigger by at least 20 planes. Even if we hit that trigger, it only allows 70 seaters to be exchanged for 76 seaters at a 3:1 ratio. However, 51-76 seat jets are capped at 255 airframes. That may seem bad, but UAL has no limit to their 70 seaters, and Us Air isn't much better.

Bottom line is we have a lot to deal with. Wide Body aircraft create more jobs then Narrow Body aircraft. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for more 76 seaters. It just means the situation is not as simple as just demanding we fly 76 seaters. The E190 is not popular in the USA. JB has the most, and RAH & Us Air have a handful. It's performance has been less then desirable.

Arent the 757s being parked? Wouldnt it be nice to see the 76 seaters have to go with them...

No. The 757's are NOT being parked.

How much of that 5-10% swing in our favor was going to happen anyway though? Many 50's are going to be parked. The company wants them parked. I'm against giving more DC-9 replacment jets to DCI to enable them to park more 50 seaters a few years faster. Also eventually, and at least for a little bit, the production balance from AF/KLM/AZ will swing back in our favor by several percentage points. We will get much or all of that 5-10% swing anyway eventually.

To even entertain the threat that the company will offshore the entire holding company to the Emirates ponzi scheme or whatever if we don't give in to more 76 seaters at DCI is pure nonsense. To think they have that leverage in the first place, and then to think that if they do that they will completely give it up just for more 76 seaters is even less logical.

Production balance can't be the only or even the primary yardstick we use. If that were true, we could increase the balance dramatically by insourcing all RJ's but outsourcing all 777's and 747's. Give up a few dozen planes and get a few hundred planes. What an epic block hour win, right? If production balance is the key as some claim, then outsourcing the top of the pyramid would produce the most bang for the buck. By far. So should we do that? And I'm not talking nebulous JV's...think Mesa with super premium widebodies, bidding to be the lowest among Kalitta, North American and 2 or 3 non union first year start ups, right here in the USA at Delta Connection International. Shouldn't that be the goal, as long as the production balance increases?

If not, why is it OK to sell management the lower end of the DC-9 range of mainline flying but not OK to sell management fewer pilot positions in larger equipment?

Selling flying to protect flying won't work long term. If the company has the leverage to shred the pilot group with ease with foreign labor busters, does anyone really think they will give all that up and give us peace in our time just for more 76 seaters?

All areas of scope have to be improved IMHO or we start the clock and work diligently towards a release to self help in full section 6 negotiations and strike for as long as it takes to fix these career oriented issues. The RLA is a long and unfair process but our CBA with early opening and accelerated timetables to mediation put us years ahead already. Putting a dirty infected band aid on the wound and having to deal with next contract with even more core domestic lift outsourced...when you KNOW they will want more large RJ's just like they do today...is a very poor long term stratedgy.

Everyone please read and understand this. Especially what's bolded.

This is the kind of critical thinking that needs to be done by all of us. If our union isn't able to and once again caves in to fear, we can fix this with a NO vote. We can give our union the backbone they may be lacking.

Carl

The problem with the top-end scope is that unlike the RJs it is mostly invisible to you. While it is very easy to see 10 DCI 50-seat RJs as 500 seats for Delta, it's much more difficult to see the three Virgin Australia 777-300ERs as providing up to 525 seats for Delta.

I have a feeling once you look at the underbelly of multinational code-shares and JVs you will find a very real and growing threat to our career, because it has the biggest impact on the senior-most positions. Even worse the interaction of the various forms of outsourced flying can create situations where the feeder feeds the partner with no need for any Delta pilots. That situation currently exist at LAX.

Delta has 3-4 international flights at LAX. For reasons that exceed the scope of this post, Delta has decided not to feed the international flights LAX with DCI, but to have a codeshare agreement with Alaska Air. In essence at SEA and LAX, Alaska Air provides Delta with the same feed that DCI typically provides, but outside the limitations and restrictions imposed on DCI by the PWA.

When a Delta passenger in say SEA want's to travel to SYD, the Alaska Air 737 pilots fly the passenger to LAX and then a Delta 777 crew carries the passenger on to Sydney. The Alaska 737 feed, supports high-paying Delta 777 jobs by adding passengers to the LAX SYD flight.

So far so good.

Now Delta enters an agreement with Virgin Australia to collaborate on flying passengers from the US to Australia. Delta and VA enter into a JV agreement to share revenue on all joint US-Australia flights. (this JV is just weeks away) Delta operates a daily 777-200 LAX SYD flight, while Virgin Australia offer three daily US-Australia frequencies on 777-300ERs. Because this JV is a "revenue sharing" JV, there are only a few provisions in our PWA that govern this arrangement:

Delta needs to operate at least four flights/week to Australia.
In return, Delta is able to place up to 175 passengers on every VA flight, not to exceed 50% of the seats on each VA aircraft.
That's all we have.

So every day, our current Section 1 permits Delta the ability to sell 525 seats (3x175) on Virgin Australia to supplement the 269 passengers on our own 777-200LR. And unlike a traditional codeshare, where there is nothing more than a "finders fee" for passenger placed on other carriers, with the new JV, Delta and VA will be splitting the ticket revenue from all passengers on the Delta and Virgin Australia LA-Australia flights.

Back to our Delta passenger in SEA going to SYD. He goes on delta.com and searches for flights from SEA to SYD. To his surprise he finds that some of the results have the entire trip operated by non-Delta pilots. SEA LAX by Alaska air pilots and LAX SYD by Virgin Australia pilots. he might get Delta pilots from LAX to SYD, but that's just luck of the draw.
In the example above, Delta pays Alaska Air a fee to fly the passenger from SEA to LAX. In turn Alaska pays Delta a "finders fee" for providing a codeshare passenger. If the passenger chooses the LAX SYD leg that is operated by VA, Delta and VA will share the passenger revenue after subtracting the cost.

Unlike the RJs, you would never know any of this is going on unless you really started to dig and look at every possible combination of route and connection. The Virgin example is a very easy to understand one because it involves one US city and three Australian. This stuff gets really complicated when the number of cities and hubs is scaled up.

If I were Delta management, mindful of airline industry consolidation on a global scale, I would want my pilots to be worried about RJs and keep the current JV language in the PWA unchanged...

Cheers
George

Gloopy, that is the essence of what we need to do!

Cheers
George

Damn.

Gloopy and George are convincing.

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content...ers-cameos.jpg

George,

Spot on. Pilots all over the seniority list are just starting to understand SJS, and we have had the problem for almost 20 years. These JV's et al are less conspicuous, and therefore need to be vetted by us each and every time DAL wants to sign one, independent of what type of economics or business model they are running under.

Gloopy, I am concerned at the noise EK is making. Wanting to buy in to AF is one way to control schedules and willingness to cooperate. In an article wit the AF CEP there is some silly talk about transferring a lot of their NA flying to their JV partners. After much thought it may just be a way for them to get out of the JV and embrace EK.

There is a lot going on in the international scene and all of us need to watch it, and educate ourselves accordingly.

Who wants the early contract? I believe the company wants it? Did they not come to us ? Why should we give up anything top or bottom? We should tighten both. I can not believe I am reading that some will give up anything. The company wants a contract fast for a reason. If we give up one more aircraftl to DCI or not tighten top end it is a NO VOTE. Try being Furloughed for 5 years while DCI grows and ALPA does nothing!! You can say it was forced on ALPA. That is Bull.

We provide something EK can't even come close to replacing. A comprehensive domestic feed in the USA is far more valueable than the redundant arbitrary hub connectivity EK can provide. EK can't touch what we do in the US. Not even remotely close. It wouldn't suprise me if EK tries to buy into or partner with AF in some way...they have to try and put their little tinpot "EGO" bubble fleet somewhere, but it won't be the catalyst for kicking DL out of the AF JV because they would be in even worse shape afterwards with a huge chunk of revenue missing that they couldn't replace.

Emirates "little tinpot EGO bubble" fleet for perspective:

19 777-200 (more than Delta!)
82 777-300 (with 78 more on order)
21 A380 (with orders for a fleet of 90)
plus a handful of A330/340s

160 777 and 90 A380s aren't just all going to fly to and from DXB are they?
With the fleet they have and the cost structure they are operating under, they will have the ability to transform most other global international airlines into niche players in distinct geographic markets. To Emirates a 7ER or a 757 let alone an A320 or 737 is nothing more than an RJ...

No need to touch when you can codeshare/buy your way in...
They have enough cash to just buy into other airlines, and are on record as of last week to do more of that.
For Europe feed they already bought into Air Berlin...

For now they are using codeshare in most places to get the feed: JetBlue in the US, Virgin Australia down under. Isn't there an upcoming Virgin America IPO?

Cheers
George

Would not surprise me one bit to see Emirates buy part of JetBlue. I think B6 is up to 18 International Partners, Emirates may want to grab a piece of B6 to enhance their Domestic feed.

"Emirates' network within the United States will soon extend to almost 20 cities through our partner JetBlue, making flying to the U.S. from the Gulf, Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and the Far East smoother and more convenient than ever before," said Thierry Antinori, executive vice president of passenger sales worldwide. "JetBlue shares our passion for innovation and best-in-class services, and we look forward to continuing to grow the relationship as we seek new ways to build our presence within the United States," continued Mr Antinori.

Yup JB in the East Virgin America in the West, even a simple codeshare would make it easy to get around foreign ownership laws by providing a subsidy revenue stream from codeshare passengers. Either carrier could become a ruthless domestic competitor bankrolled by a steady stream of foreign codeshare pax revenue, all perfectly legal....

Cheers
George

OK, maybe I am naive, but isn't the easy answer to require ALPA approval of all future: JV/Codeshare/Revenue Sharing/Cabotage/Foreign Ownership etc? It seems completely impossible to write comprehensive contractual language to cover every eventuality. There needs to be some way to look at each individual proposal and how it effects the seniority list at Delta. Is giving ALPA a say in the process something that management would never agree to? Is it something that simply would never fly with management?

Our Achilles heel is the current PWA language permitting 175 seats(or 50%) on every foreign jet if we have four flights/week to their country...

We opened the hole...
Now we need to plug it.

The problem with all these agreements is not the initial bilateral agreement but how Delta then combines them with other JV/codeshare/dci agreements to operationally benefit, but at the detriment to the intent of each individual agreement.

Over Simplified Example:

DCI = more big delta jets by providing feed from places you don't want to fly.
AK = more big Delta jets to Asia and Australia, we can't make money on the west coast anyways
AFKLM JV = More big jets across the Atlantic more smaller Delta jets flying the Dutch and French to BHM
VA JV = We need a partner or the LAX SYD flight is toast

Each one of these agreements individually promises to provide a benefit to Delta pilots.

But what happens when Delta decides to feed AFKLM with AK?
Delta still gets money because the AFKLM JV is "metal neutral."
It doesn't matter what it says on the side of the jet, the JV parties simply pool then split the profits.

Delta get money from the AFKLM JV profit
AS gets revenue from the codeshare passenger

Who is missing here?

But what happens when Delta decides to feed AFKLM with DCI?

Delta get money form the AFKLM JV profit
DCI gets paid to fly Delta passenger.

The only saving grace is that on their side of the pond, we benefit from their regionals...

Ironically the straight codeshare, should be the most benign out of all of these. but because we don't have language that requires reciprocity, many of our code-shares are asymmetric...

Instead of I scratch your back, you scratch my back, you have Hawaiian using JetBlue in NYC to provide feed for flights to the islands, China Airlines our Skyteam partner using Virgin America in LAX to connect passengers on to US destinations...Virgin Australia codesharing with Alaska to provide feed for LAX...

Anyone can show you metrics how each individual agreement benefits the Delta pilots. We have no measurements on how combining these agreement affects us.

Cheers
George

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

Well, I guess it all boils down to how much negotiating capital is available to fix everything you are out to fix. It seems to an outsider that the quick agreement that has been much talked about on this board is a pipe dream at best. Is there any way that management is so engaged in the process and accomplishing a quick agreement that they are willing to give away so much of the management friendly language that is currently on the books? It looks like you may in fact be headed down the same extremely long bumpy road that virtually all recent section 6 fights have traveled. One consequence to all the recent consolidation of the industry is that it seems almost inevitable that the threshold of: "substantially interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," will be crossed allowing the presidential emergency board getting involved and complicating the path to self help.

With this are you suggesting it would be acceptable to allow more outsourced 76 seaters as long as nothing larger than 76 seats is outsourced?:confused:

Reading this makes me wish I were old enough to retire...

That makes two of us. Pretty discouraging considering the "we have an opportunity right now and leverage to do great things".

With what has been put out it appears we are trying to divide a small pie that normally feeds 4, 27 ways. I am really having a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact we are even talking concessionary type rules considering where the company is headed (lots of money). Anyway, if you figure out a way for both of us to punch out and live comfortably right now let me know?

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

What's ironic is the 76 seaters didn't start coming "on property" until we were hiring (or about to start hiring) in 2007.

The 50 seater explosion was what happened during the furloughs.

I understand your position but I still believe it would be a huge mistake to allow one more large RJ (that includes 70/76 seaters).

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.

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

Isn't such pessimism a bit premature, not to mention counterproductive? A T/A is probably a long way off, and "there'll be a load of compromisin' on the road to that horizon." :)

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

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.

Yep, opportunities abound.


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.

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.

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.