Hey DELTA, if you want more 70 seaters...
 

Fly Them At Mainline!!

Why aren't you guys/gals insisting on this, instead of selling more scope? (Bring the jobs back to mainline and your advancement will be much quicker.)

That's conventional wisdom, but is it true?

APA, UAL and CAL don't allow 76 seaters in the small portion of their scope. How has career progression worked out at each one of those carriers?

APA - furloughs
UAL - furloughs
CAL - furloughed in 2008, recalled, slow hiring of furloughed UAL pilots
DAL - no furloughs, small (300) hiring in 2010.

Why is it that the airline with the "weakest" small jet scope never furloughed and the tighter guys did?

DAL hired 300 in 2010? That is a lot for one year. How long did it take to get them through training?

That's not even a burp for one year. In the 80's we hired on average over 600 per year. In the 90's we hired over 500 per year, and that was pre-merger. The system can handle way more than that.

So the key to mainline hiring is outsourcing a fleet of DC9-10's in numbers equal to the size of the former Northwest Airlines fleet? How many will you hire when you outsource the MD-88 in the next TA?

Nope, but you know that.

As a regional guy care to answer the original question on conventional wisdom?:rolleyes: Maybe you have some additional facts for us to consider to support the position you've advocated here in the past. I'm not trying to be argumentative here...show me a better path, one that actually works, and I'll help get us there. But we've got to start from where we are, with our current contract and company, not from where you wish we would be.

Sure, no problem! Is there any other heavy lifting that Delta pilots can do to improve YOUR next contract at YOUR airline?

I don't think Delta hired because of the large RJs, I think it was mostly the early retirements plus Delta smart plan of buying older, used airplanes in the down turn. United outsources the same plane types and range, just with different seating, so I doubt it is the answer.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise, but the original poster said "bring back jobs to mainline and your advancement will be much quicker." I provided examples of airlines that have those jobs at their mainline...and at each one they had furloughs and no advancement.

Yes, the early retirement program helped, but we didn't retire as many as we hired that year.

Again with the hiring due to DALPA's scope clause. Could it be the primary reason DAL did not furlough in the second half of '00's is because about 2300 pilots early retired in 2003-2005?

How many RJ's does the SWAPA scope allow, and how many pilots did SWA furlough?

There are many reasons an airline expands or contracts. Scope is just one of those reasons. To state as you do above that "the" reason (by omission of any other reason) is misleading.

According to the guys in the cpo, the reason we hired last time was they offered too many long term leaves. As the economy shifted they could not get furlough bypass pilots or pilots off of leave. As a result they needed to hire to staff the summer block hr plan.

I was told this after I enquirered about a three year loa and was told the latest they would grant was the end of 2012 or March of 2013.

Too expensive. How would that be created? Pilots from mainline, but what about the FA's and mechanics? What about the rampers? Would Delta have to purchase new aircraft? What about the sims?

The problem is we already know that regional feed is very cheap, and it's getting cheaper because management continues to lower the payout for each new regional contract. United does it too. Colgan had to give up the Dash-8-400s because United wanted to lower the payments, and Colgan couldn't afford it. COLGAN! So, Republic took them. Same with the Delta regionals. And any management team and board of directors will tell you profits allow the airline to keep flying. It would be just too costly, and very complex.

You really are mad. Are you the bottom guy at DL? Sounds like it. Go to a roadshow, please.

DALPA offered. DAL said no. They unfortunately get to decide such things. So it is certainly not that simple. While we would all like that. DAL for this round wont have it. SHortage etc in the near future may make the costs very neutral to bring it back. Id love to fly the CRJ900 again.

CAL's furlough was a result of the age 60 change, it's quite a stretch to suggest that scope had anything to do with it. They were hiring for attrition, and it didn't happen. And yet, somehow, miraculously, we continue to shrink the pilot group in spite of our hiring. If the 'growth' we've seen due to outsourcing is the result of previous scope sales, you've just given me yet another example why we shouldn't allow more large RJ's.

Do you even hear yourself? Are you actually trying to imply that growing large RJ fleets is a good thing for the pilots at the mainline? Tell that to the guys who have been stuck on the bottom of our list for 10+ years.

Do you even hear yourself?

'Regional feed is very cheap and getting cheaper'. 'Mainline is too expensive'.

Of course managment is going to keep taking more of the flying from YOU (mainline) and giving it to the regionals. They are just taking it a little bit at a time (whenever you allow it) and you hardly even miss it.

The trouble is that you have given away (sold actually) any reason for Delta to even have a domestic mainline operation (and hence a job for most of you). A little at a time you have given it all to the regionals. If you keep giving it away, all domestic flying (and quite alot of international) will be done by the regionals.

It is ruining the profession of being an airline pilot. Most of the jobs are low paying and poor work rules (compared to the 'too expensive' mainline jobs). A large percentage of current regional pilots will be lifetime career regional pilots, simply because that it where the jobs are (because of your vote). And those that do make it to a major, will be stagnated at the bottom (because most of the jobs and growth are at the 'cheaper' regional).

Bill,

Slowplay's own number was that its 33% more expensive at mainline. Looking at the pay rates, most of that is from crew cost and the increase would only put the crew cost inline with other mainline aircraft. Delta already handles DCI at most (maybe all) of the Delta stations and has a subsidiary for handling DCI at small outstations much cheaper than Delta could do and apparently cheaper than the DCI carriers since we eliminated most of the DCI staffed stations. Delta covers every single cost to operate these aircraft plus enough extra for the DCI carriers to make a profit (usually:cool:).

I encourage you to look into the cost associated with CRJ-900, -1000 E-175, -190 aircraft vs the 717, 737-700, 319, and MD88.

While is is cheaper to outsource it is not too expensive to in-source the 76 seat aircraft. If for some reason we ever outsourced the a320 flying it also we become to expensive for us to do as DCI would easily undercut us by 33% on it as well.

Cold Whiskey

You are confusing cause and effect. It wasn't mainline votes that created the RJ business; it was technology (50-seat planes powered by efficient engines) and the presence of cheap labor that created the business model. RJ existed first, the the RJ business. You want to blame somebody--go with BBD, Embraer and the engine designers plus the thousands of people willing to work for RJ wages. If you are a RJ pilot, the mirror, perhaps.

GF

Exactly. A plane does not have to be cheapest to operate at mainline in order to make it work at mainline. Every plane is cheaper at the cut throat bottom feeding labor busters than at mainline. That doesn't mean anything for a 90 seat "RJ" or a 300 seat 777.

How many pilots did CAL hire after 2005? That number would be about 25% of their pilot group. They furloughed some but go and talk to their pilots and find out how understaffed they were before and after the furlough. You might be surprised at what they say.

Ask yourself this when it comes to scope. How big were the majors 20 - 15 - 10 years ago vs. the regionals and then compare that to today? You still gonna make the argument that outsourcing is good?

Here's a thought to your question but maybe the airline with the weakest scope undercut those other airlines. Ever think of that? Maybe they just had poor management that couldn't run the airline and it really didn't have much to do with scope at all?

That is incorrect. UAL does not outsource any CRJ900 or E175 jets. They would love to, but Scope language doesn't allow for it.

Delta management is intelligent enough to know that scope relief is best sold when you don't have to furlough.

It's unfortunate that my goal of no new scope erosion at Delta pins me as a junior guy. I would like to think that all Delta pilots have a goal of no new RJs.

I currently fly one of your outsourced "RJs" coast to coast with one stop.

I'm not mad (angry), but perhaps I am mad (crazy) for hoping that the outsourcing can slow down, maybe even stop.

Let me take a stab at this.

You currently have a cap of 255 for the 70/76 seat planes correct. Is there anything stopping mainline from getting additional 76 seat airplanes in your contract. The answer is yes and no. Yes in the fact that they can't go to the regionals without scope relief. No in the fact that there is nothing that says Delta can't buy as many as they want as long as Delta pilots are flying them. You guys already have the pay scales in the contract for crj900. (one version of a current 76 seat airplane) Mainline wants to dump some of the 50 seaters and says they need an order of 76 seaters to allow that. If you guys flew them how is this not a way to allow this to happen? How is this not a plan?

Yes the pilot costs are more than what is being offered at the regionals but do you feel that those are fair rates and then ask yourself do the regionals have any leverage to actually raise them on their own? The answer to both is no. If they raise bar they lose them to the next flavor of the week regional. As for the rates and being too expensive what was the payscale for the dc9-10? It was the same as all the other dc9's out there and your current payscales for the emb195 and emb 190/crj900 are well below that of the current dc9 payscales. Isn't that already a concession? Why is more needed than that?

Why is it ok to dump more 76 seaters on pilots that hold virtually zero leverage and expect them to do the lifting which everyone knows can't happen. The regional pilots don't have any say when flying is taken away but the majors do.

The problem that some see is that because it costs more for you to fly them there is less in the piggy bank for you. That could be and if that's the case, aren't the pilots at the majors basically saying it's all about me and my paycheck and **** on the rest of you. Yeah I know that sound harsh but isn't that what loosening scope does? Allows for larger pay rates at the majors being subsidized by the pilots at the regionals? Has anyone ever said what it would "actually cost" to have those flown at mainline? How much of a % in pay would it cost? (per pilot)

One last thing. How much more are pilots at the mainline making because they have allowed all of this outsourcing?

What's your advice for their leverage so that another flavor of the week regional doesn't come in and under cut them once they raise their pay and work rules. Remember that it's supposedly illegal for the airlines to all negotiate contracts together. At least that's what my reps say.

How are you doing this with the 717? As I understand it you don't have any of these either so everything is new.

So why continue to let them do this by adding more 76 seaters?

CW,

I think you know better. The Scope fiasco goes back to pre-1990 and DAL Pilots never really sold scope. In hindsight plenty of bad decisions have been made - throughout the industry by all legacy Pilot groups. Scope has evolved with technology over time to get us to where we are.

Speaking of where we are - our current Scope sucks - but this has been the result of numerous causes, not the least of which was Bankruptcy. The current TA actually improves our terrible Scope to maybe, just crappy Scope. :(

If its any consolation it looks like the Scope line will hold at 76 seats at Delta.

Scoop

Wrong. If the current proposal is voted in, history will judge harshly the further mistake of allowing more large RJ's to be outsourced. Let's not justify more "bad decisions". Just say no.

Delta already owns all that stuff. They keep it hidden under another certificate in Cincinnati.

Can you expand on the first part? How did you not sell it or give it up?

The line may have been held at 76 seats but the amount of 70-76 seat planes continues to grow.

I imagine the pilots that voted out the 30, 44, 50, and 70 seat planes thought the same thing.

Don't worry to much about RJ's being flown by delta pilots at mainline. This will happen probably in the next 24 months. What is going to happen? Well, I do believe that Delta management will just purchase a regional pilot group and welcome them to Delta. Seat lock them in the RJ for a few years and then all RJ's will be flown by Delta pilots. Problem solved....

:confused:

Interesting first post.

You obviously have very little knowledge of the actual history and contents of scope clauses at the major airlines.....

I guess so. I've only been in the industry for 10 years, and in those 10 years I've seen nothing but growth at the regionals. All of those previous contracts had excuses, being an economic downturn and all. But the excuses for this latest round of outsourcing just don't make sense to a lowly RJ pilot like myself.

Not sure 76 seaters will grow - A No vote may stop this. True, the three for one would allow more 76 seaters but when you consider 70 seaters will have to parked (255 CAP on 70 +76 seaters) the large RJs will not really grow with a NO vote.

If we sold Scope what did we get for it? Scope is too complicated to accurately describe in a bumper sticker. Bad decisions go back decades and the final straw was in BK - I wouldn't really call that selling it.

ALPA and DALPA both have made many poor Scope descions - this is very obvious in hindsight. but I am not sure it was obvious back when they were making the decisions. 70 Seat Scope at DAL actually goes back to 1986. Before the RJ, Scope strictly limited seats and made no distinction between jets and Props. Along came the RJ and we have been playing catch up ever since.

PM me your E-mail address and I will send you a 5 page history of Scope at DAL written a few years ago be a C-44 guy.

Scoop

Really? Not that we ever voted on 30 seat Scope, but if we did and the Pilots only allowed more 30 seaters, but no larger aircraft - what would be the Scope limit Now? Hint - 30 seats.

Repeat for 44, 50, and 70.

As a junior guy, 2000 hire, Scope is by far the most important issue to me. Problem is, our Scope already sucks so just saying No more RJs doesn't really work.

Scoop

Why are we trading 50 seat RJ's for 76 seat RJ's?? The 50 seat RJ's are toast! They are dead dinosaurs. We are fools if we think we are gaining by the "accellerated retirement" of 50 seats RJ's. They have been, and will continue to retire those, no matter wheather we ratify this TA or not.

Come on guys, a ~50% increase in 76 seat RJ's?

What happened to holding the line? NO MORE RJ's!

PTC

Hmm, what airline never furloughs and always makes a profit. How about not flying anything with less then a 100 seats because IT DOESN'T MAKE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe this has already been pointed out, but realistically what we are "trading" with regards to small jet scope in this TA is 50 seaters for 70 seaters. The company can already acquire more 76 seat JETS (not to mention unlimited 76 seat turboprops) than this TA allows. I completely agree with the notion that it will not be cost productive to convert the 70s to 76s in the short run, but make no mistake, it will happen eventually (say 6-9 years?) To me the benefits of reducing the allowable 76 seat count, capping the TOTAL outsourced count, and tying in currently nonexistent restrictions on the REAL future threats of geared turbofans and turboprops outweigh the negatives of allowing the company to up gauge their 50 seaters to 70 seaters at a 2 for 1 ratio. This combined with the mbh/dbh ratio (which apparently works quite well as a natural limiter in the case of United's 70 seaters) are pretty well thought out limits considering what we have now.

The issue I do have w the small jet scope is the enforcement of the ratios. There don't appear to be provisions for concrete penalties for failure to comply, other than a grievance ruled on by an arbitrator. If the ratios could be assured, I personally wouldnt give a damn if we allowed unlimited 76 seat jets. If the company wanted to buy 1000 of them and average 3 or so hours a day in them, they still would have to use Delta mainline pilots in far greater proportion than they are now.

All of the current RJ drivers pleading for DAL pilots to stop the outsourcing, be careful what you wish for. If this TA passes close to 1500 of your jobs will cease to exist. Some number of them will move to mainline, but i doubt it will be all.