Originally Posted by Brocc15

So assuming these rumors are true, can I ask why would our negotiators agree to allow more 76 seaters in exchange for less 50 seaters?! That is crazy, everyone knows the 50 seaters will go away or at least greatly reduce eventually here either way! The company must have very good negotiators if they can convince us to give up something in exchange for something the company was planning on giving up anyway.

Regional flying should be REGIONAL. Small airplanes, with a maximum flight distance as well. I really hope the MEC votes for what is in our best interest. I'm usually really optimistic, but I just have a bad feeling that these rumors have to have some truth to them. With southwest pushing back 737 deliveries, something going on between Delta and Pinnacle, along with the letter we received from the chairman emphasizing RATIO, I'm getting a little worried.

Originally Posted by JungleBus

While we all await the T/A, here's a little more "dot connecting" from a lowly regional puke (albeit one next in line to become a Deltoid [cpz flow], and thus with more than a passing interest in this contract):

If, as gloopy and others have conjectured, this T/A allows extra 76 seaters in exchange for parking a greater number of 50 seaters, it's important that everyone see in real terms what they're voting for or against. You won't be simply voting to decrease or increase DCI airframes. Neither will you be voting to decrease or increase DCI ASMs. This will be nothing less than a choice between the destruction of the two-tier outsourcing system that has developed over the last 20 years, and its preservation.

Here's why. For the first time in a very long time, the status quo is in your guys favor. The Pinnacle bankruptcy demonstrates why. The 50 seaters, marginally profitable in the best of times, have become a huge albatross around management's neck. They're inefficient, and oil costs have gone up. The need for 50 seat feed has become increasingly superfluous in the face of consolidation. Regional labor costs, long held down by continuous expansion and high turnover, have skyrocketed. In the case of Pinnacle, long one of the cheapest regionals out there and thus a big beneficiary of additional outsourcing over the last 10 years, the costs increased so much that Delta was unwilling to pay anything extra for Pinnacle to cover them, even though it drove Pinnacle into bankruptcy. You know what this means? It means outsourcing is no longer profitable to management, even with the advantages of whipsaw. As management cuts its losses, the factors that drove it to do so will only accelerate (ie regional 51-76 seat costs will go up as they shed 50 seaters)...we may very well be seeing the destruction of the outsourcing system.

Why ALPA would want to halt this positive trend, I cannot fathom; I do know some of you have your own theories. But if this T/A contains the scope relief many of us think it will, it represents nothing less than a dramatic intervention on management's behalf to preserve the two-tier system as-is. The only way DAL can make outsourcing profitable again is to replace inefficient aircraft with very efficient aircraft, and do so at young or new carriers, or those fresh from BK court with costs reset. Why would any pilot want that? Just when growing mainline is finally becoming advantageous, you'd be making yourselves management's choice of last resort once again!

Any other gains in a T/A that contains such scope relief would constitute nothing more than 30 pieces of silver to buy your acquiescence to the continuing destruction of your profession and the betrayal of the next generation of airline pilots. That's the way I see it, anyways. I sincerely hope this T/A doesn't force you to make that choice. Carry on....

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

It's not that the company has such great negotiators, it's just that our national union has a duty to try and help all of its member pilot groups. in ALPA's eyes, this is a win for all the pilot groups...even though this is just our contract. Mr. Moak specifically stated that national will use all of its power to ensure pilot contracts are not "self-serving" but rather embody what's best for the entire industry as a whole. This TA will be proof of the national strategy.

We all have the power to stop this and set a new standard that will be cheered by all other major pilots, and a great majority of regional pilots. It is our NO vote. It looks like fate has placed Delta pilots in the position of sending a message to all parties (especially our own national union). I truly hope we all step up to the challenge.

Carl

Originally Posted by JungleBus

While we all await the T/A, here's a little more "dot connecting" from a lowly regional puke (albeit one next in line to become a Deltoid [cpz flow], and thus with more than a passing interest in this contract):

If, as gloopy and others have conjectured, this T/A allows extra 76 seaters in exchange for parking a greater number of 50 seaters, it's important that everyone see in real terms what they're voting for or against. You won't be simply voting to decrease or increase DCI airframes. Neither will you be voting to decrease or increase DCI ASMs. This will be nothing less than a choice between the destruction of the two-tier outsourcing system that has developed over the last 20 years, and its preservation.

Here's why. For the first time in a very long time, the status quo is in your guys favor. The Pinnacle bankruptcy demonstrates why. The 50 seaters, marginally profitable in the best of times, have become a huge albatross around management's neck. They're inefficient, and oil costs have gone up. The need for 50 seat feed has become increasingly superfluous in the face of consolidation. Regional labor costs, long held down by continuous expansion and high turnover, have skyrocketed. In the case of Pinnacle, long one of the cheapest regionals out there and thus a big beneficiary of additional outsourcing over the last 10 years, the costs increased so much that Delta was unwilling to pay anything extra for Pinnacle to cover them, even though it drove Pinnacle into bankruptcy. You know what this means? It means outsourcing is no longer profitable to management, even with the advantages of whipsaw. As management cuts its losses, the factors that drove it to do so will only accelerate (ie regional 51-76 seat costs will go up as they shed 50 seaters)...we may very well be seeing the destruction of the outsourcing system.

Why ALPA would want to halt this positive trend, I cannot fathom; I do know some of you have your own theories. But if this T/A contains the scope relief many of us think it will, it represents nothing less than a dramatic intervention on management's behalf to preserve the two-tier system as-is. The only way DAL can make outsourcing profitable again is to replace inefficient aircraft with very efficient aircraft, and do so at young or new carriers, or those fresh from BK court with costs reset. Why would any pilot want that? Just when growing mainline is finally becoming advantageous, you'd be making yourselves management's choice of last resort once again!

Any other gains in a T/A that contains such scope relief would constitute nothing more than 30 pieces of silver to buy your acquiescence to the continuing destruction of your profession and the betrayal of the next generation of airline pilots. That's the way I see it, anyways. I sincerely hope this T/A doesn't force you to make that choice. Carry on....

Originally Posted by hoserpilot

Flew with an old guy today. He really didn't care about scope. He wanted to maximize pay for his remaining couple of years. Bummer. I totally get it but I was still bummed.

Originally Posted by bigdaddie

I too have regional roots; it thrills me to see this model collapsing. When I was a Captain at a regional carrier making the big sub-pentagonial pay, I didn't for once think "I've made it." I don't understand how having these highly integrated marketing agreements (read AK) or outsourcing flying that is just inside the max range of our smallest aircraft, while supporting the overhead of numerous business entities, makes sense from an overall business perspective. I can understand the business model in the short term, read: make the most money for our stockholders NOW. CE Woolman would be ****ed off at this point. He would enter in frame of RA's pre-departure speech and slap him across the face. Now, I like RA, but you can't make a case for Delta employees being the best and "you all come back now" attitude while all the time trying to outsource our flying.

If this TA has ONE section 1 concession, I'm a NO; I don't care if we have 100% dos increase. I want improvements for me, don't get me wrong, but I want improvements for my kids and JungleBus's kids in this industry as well. it's up to us to stop it my friends.

BD

Originally Posted by gloopy

Meh. The number of pilots that will retire under this contract is absolutely dwarfed by those that will remain. Plus not all "short timers" are passively or actively willing to sell out more flying anyway.