How'd you guys do holding the line on WB scope in TA16? I know you think it's just 48.5 to 46.5 and may not be a problem at all (i read your DL forum post and have lots of DL friends), but if the company didn't want it and didn't see upside to it (for them, not you), they wouldn't have stuck it in there. At least there won't be more jumbo RJs flying for DCI. That's a plus. Thanks (honestly) for raising the bar for the rest of us with pay. I just wish scope, touted by you as the most important part of any pilot contract, wasn't sold...not even one Atlantic crossing a day.

Here we go again.

How about this: The pilots' collective bargaining agent has a contract with the airline that includes a restriction that specifies all aircraft above a certain weight or with more than a certain number of seats must be flown by those pilots if the flying is done under the code/marketing of the airline for which they fly. Further (in Delta's case) if any regional affiliate exceeds those restrictions, even under another code/fee-for-departure agreement, they may no longer fly under a regional affiliate/codeshare/fee for departure with that airline.

Not ownership of a "code." More than a vote. A contractual restriction.

Delta has zero sway over what Skywest flies. Skywest however wanted to fly for Delta. In the agreement they signed they stated they will abide by the scope restrictions in Delta's contract.

Its not as simple as that. The 48.5 remains. The only thing that was changed was an option to go as low as 46.5 on the trans atlantic JV, but only if at that point 650K global block hours were also protected, which was WAY more than otherwise would have been. But more importantly, the 2% drop would then have to be measured yearly and always be in compliance, as opposed to a 4 year period that only has to be in compliance one year every 4.

So to say it was a simple "selling" of 2% in that one JV isn't what happened at all. Now that said, I still think our scope, pre TA and post TA, is lacking in that area. I'm not against international JV's, and honestly you'd have to be an idiot to think a US airline could fly the globe like its 1960 with no foreign partners. Not going to happen, not now not ever again. JV's are vital. But they need to be structured to protect our side of them. The TA scope makes more improvements in that area than it gives up. But we still have way more work to do.

The jumbo RJ growth was smacked down, and SEA was at least protected from future non Alaska poaching. That was more a tying up of a loose end so it couldn't bite us later than it was a current scope improvement, but every little bit helps.

DL my friend. But you already knew that.

You wanna fly DL code? You have to be in compliance with the DALPA PWA. End of story.

SKYW is perfectly free to go it alone, like IndyAir, and fly whatever they want wherever they want to their heart's content. But if they want to fly DL code, they may only do so IAW the DALPA PWA. There is no other way for them or anyone else to fly the code, because all DL code flown is subject to the DALPA PWA. DALPA chooses to allow some of that to be outsourced, so if you would like to bid on some of that flying that is permitted, you may respond to the next RFP and if you are selected you may then fly it IAW our restrictions.

I actually do see what you're trying to do. You're venturing deep into sophistry in order to head fake profundity on the issue. DL pilots own the code, period. Now, does that mean we own the letters D and L and no one else can use them in the alphabet together in any context? Well gee I guess you got me there. :roll eyes:

You want to fly DL code, you must do it IAW the DALPA pilot agreement. Period. We do allow some of it to be outsourced, and IMO too much. But that is our choice.