New flaw in TA scope
06-04-2012 | 10:26 AM
#371
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 0
Another angle in scope recapture is the possibility that management, instead of parking the 76 seat jets, decides to fly them at mainline. They would have to buy out those contracts at DCI and get the pilots that come with the jets. DALPA in that situation would be faced with a possible regional/mainline SLI; A complete disaster much worse than a DFR.
06-04-2012 | 10:30 AM
#372
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Another angle in scope recapture is the possibility that management, instead of parking the 76 seat jets, decides to fly them at mainline. They would have to buy out those contracts at DCI and get the pilots that come with the jets. DALPA in that situation would be faced with a possible regional/mainline SLI; A complete disaster much worse than a DFR.
Naaaaah this is a non issue.
06-04-2012 | 10:39 AM
#373
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 0
No disaster... staples would be applied. Easy. You are already at your maximum potential for what you are bringing to the table, and you will be allowed to stay there and move up as your seniority progresses. Or do you think that because some have stayed at DCI since 1995 they should now be in the left seat of a MD88?
Naaaaah this is a non issue.
Naaaaah this is a non issue.
06-04-2012 | 10:41 AM
#374
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: No to large RJs
I don't buy that argument. If ALPA brought the RJs to mainline they'd be getting MORE dues. So in essence, they're harming themselves by leaving them at regionals. Plus, take a look at APA's BK proposal for scope. It's an eye opener.
308 51-88 seaters PLUS 352 70 seaters. That's APA's proposal to management. I understand they're in BK, but did ALPA give that up in BK?
308 51-88 seaters PLUS 352 70 seaters. That's APA's proposal to management. I understand they're in BK, but did ALPA give that up in BK?
Regarding AMR, we are not in bankruptcy and I will not make a decision to outsource our jobs based on proposals of companies/pilots in bankruptcy. DALPA allowed the 70 seater line to be crossed in BK and the fact that other companies/pilots are pushing the limits now doesn't surprise me one bit. DALPA did not hold the line. Allowing more 76 seaters only puts more pressure on the rest of the industry to outsource their NB fleets. We are now the bellwether for the industry, not AMR, simply because we would be willfully surrendering more NB jobs while not in bankruptcy.
Last edited by DAWGS; 06-04-2012 at 10:45 AM. Reason: bolded word
06-04-2012 | 10:47 AM
#375
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
If we flew the RJs here, it would have to be initially be for similar rates. ALPA would not lose/gain much in dues either way. They gain more in outsourcing by minimizing our leverage over ALPA flying and keeping the DFR lawsuits at bay.
Regarding AMR, we are not in bankruptcy and I will not make a decision to outsource our jobs based on proposals of companies/pilots in bankruptcy. DALPA allowed the 70 seater line to be crossed in BK and the fact that other companies/pilots are pushing the limits now doesn't surprise me one bit. DALPA did not hold the line. Allowing more 76 seaters only puts more pressure on the rest of the industry to outsource their NB fleets. We are now the bellwether for the industry, not AMR, simply because we would be willfully surrendering more NB jobs while not in bankruptcy.
Regarding AMR, we are not in bankruptcy and I will not make a decision to outsource our jobs based on proposals of companies/pilots in bankruptcy. DALPA allowed the 70 seater line to be crossed in BK and the fact that other companies/pilots are pushing the limits now doesn't surprise me one bit. DALPA did not hold the line. Allowing more 76 seaters only puts more pressure on the rest of the industry to outsource their NB fleets. We are now the bellwether for the industry, not AMR, simply because we would be willfully surrendering more NB jobs while not in bankruptcy.
I respect your position, and I'm honestly not trying to change it. The reality is that whatever AMR gets scope wise will likely be more then we allow now. Then we will have even LESS leverage IMO. The NMB will consider what's going on in the rest of the industry. Not just DALs world. And so if we vote it down, and continue to do so, our position will likely become weaker as we go along. I could be wrong, but I think it's something to consider.
06-04-2012 | 10:54 AM
#376
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Talk like that will ensure you are out on the street.
Unlike a "merger" where one airline acquires another, the transaction you contemplate is simply one airline deciding to do its own work. There is nothing under the law that prevents a Company from deciding to do its own work.
06-04-2012 | 10:55 AM
#377
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: No to large RJs
I respect your position, and I'm honestly not trying to change it. The reality is that whatever AMR gets scope wise will likely be more then we allow now. Then we will have even LESS leverage IMO. The NMB will consider what's going on in the rest of the industry. Not just DALs world. And so if we vote it down, and continue to do so, our position will likely become weaker as we go along. I could be wrong, but I think it's something to consider.
06-04-2012 | 11:01 AM
#379
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
I'm not interested in this discussion... but.... your biggest and best paying job is _________. Therefore your potential is _______ Captain. IF you are merged into another entity that flies... oh.. let's say... 777s, how can you justify being merged into that list at any place other than one that would award you a windfall at the expense of the pilots on the other list? Pay should have little to do with it because that changes, although since Gary Kelly has invalidated Allegheny Mohawk, it possibly has a workaround. (not in your favor though) Not wanting to start this war, but a staple would be a realistic deal. You can have the last word, because as I said, I am not interested in this speculation as a discussion.
06-04-2012 | 11:03 AM
#380
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Delta and D-ALPA can decide how much flying Delta does. What ALPA can't do is let D-ALPA negotiate to harm a specific group of pilots. There is a difference.
If Delta limits outsourcing to X%, that's fine. Where ALPA gets into trouble is when they subvert the interests of one group to benefit another group, like buying an airline, stripping its code and refusing to merge it, or directing that flying NOT go to certain ALPA carriers (as NWA did when it directed flying away from its subsidiaries to avoid capex on RJ's)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
