Two honest questions for you:

1) What would you say, in general terms, is the goal of a Scope clause.

2) What is the difference between a passenger who buys a ticket that says "Delta" who flies on an Air France 747 versus one who flies on a Comair 50 seat RJ.....or one who flies on an Alaska 737 versus one who flies on a Shuttle America Ejet.

i get it, i'm just pointing out that because something appears to be a "win" in seats cut may not be "win" at all. read- i dont want them to have the 717's it was only to prove a pointl. I'd rather keep the 76 seaters at 255 and cut the 50 seaters out, which will happen on its own. Management can have all the 76 seaters they want IF theres DAL pilots at the controls, so if they want more that bad then....

Someone who gets it. Buy 300 of them. They will be flown at DAL, however. Why is this so difficult to understand by the small faction of the "yes" spinmeisters?

If RJET has proven one thing, it is that pilots from THR same seniority list can fly on multiple certificates. Do do that instantly, would require unity throughout the delta brand. People are whining about a 35% hiring quote which makes the former impossible to talk about.

The 35% for ALPA DCI is not a big deal in my opinion. Whether it's written in the contract or not, we are most likely going to get that same 35% anyway. It's just eye-wash to encourage the DCI groups to unionize under ALPA, which is a good idea anyway. It's also a bone we are throwing to them because we are going to speed up the loss of hundreds of DCI jobs if this TA passes. If you're worried about there being room for your military bros, don't. There won't be enough of them getting out to make up more than 65% of the new hire classes anyway. Probably be unlikely to get even half from the military because they can't stand the paycut unless they are retiring.

Also, you should have heard the *****in' around here about getting part of our pay from profit sharing when the company was losing money. I think trading a small piece of the profit sharing for a guaranteed pay raise is a good trade.

Well, I'm not sure you get my point, because in answer to your original question, yes, if I could somehow use 717s to improve scope, I'd do it.

So let me answer my own questions (in a condescending and pontificating way ):

1) The purpose of our Scope clause should be to do everything to ensure that Delta pilots fly Delta passengers

2) From a Delta pilot's perspective, there is no difference between any of those passengers....they were all outsourced....don't care if it was on a big plane or a little plane. Either way, some of their ticket money went to somebody elses' pilot.

This Scope makes it harder for Delta management to outsource a passenger. There are simply fewer seats for them to stash passenger butts on. Further, for the first time, this Scope demands that Delta pilots must do a certain percentage of the flying....and as 76 seaters are added (even though overall seats decline) the amount of contractual flying that we demand actually increases.

I agree, however if we "bought" about 2% of the payrates in this TA by reducing profit sharing then the real W2 increase is only 2/6.5/1/1. Does that really sound like we used any leverage in these expedited negotiations?

You and Leine Lodge are making a mistake in assuming that some of us have made our decisions without reading the entirety of section 1. You're mistaken. I certainly dont need road shows produced by a union who is desperate to see this passed. I rely on my own abilities to read every word of a contract.

My abilities thus far has shown me a section 1 absolutely riddled with loopholes. Our union missed the RAH loophole and many others. Whom should one trust?

Vote how you like, but people like you who insult us by saying we obviously haven't read the language or haven't attended enough road shows, do not make yourselves more persuasive. It makes you sound like yet another ALPA shill. Food for thought.

Carl

I like your thought, but it would actually be 2/8.5/3/3. We pay for it on the first raise, not every raise.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for this part. The only thing that really bugs me is how much money we may be leaving on the table

I get that. All things being equal, it really is better to have the same amount of pay in your check no matter what than to have to rely on profits. But to have to "fund" 12/3/3 with a −2 to −3 loss in PS during times of record profits with more projected is a really odd way to buff that 12 number, which is arguably anemic to begin with.