05-11-2024Quote:
I can't quote your reply because the post will become longer than War and Peace. I think it is odd that you say CO is losing 737's because of market conditions and DL lost 737's and 727's because of scope. It's like everything that shrinks AMR and CO are due to other issues but Delta is the only airline where job losses are caused by scope.
DAL had RJ's on order, CAL does not, and as you will agree we are in a different kind of economic event. Originally Posted by alfaromeo
ACL,I can't quote your reply because the post will become longer than War and Peace. I think it is odd that you say CO is losing 737's because of market conditions and DL lost 737's and 727's because of scope. It's like everything that shrinks AMR and CO are due to other issues but Delta is the only airline where job losses are caused by scope.
Quote:
I don't know if you are reading what I write or are deliberately altering what I said. I said specifically that loose scope does not cause mainline growth. It is independent.
To sum up your position (or what I think your position is):
1. If we recapture 70/76 jet flying it will not affect flying for current mainline jobs - I agree (remember, just pilots changing their ID badges)
2. Mainline growth or contraction primarily rests on the business plans of management, not on scope restrictions - I agree
3. Recapturing 70/76 seat flying is good for Delta pilots - I agree
It seems the only point we disagree on is how to recapture the flying. I believe that management has to want this to happen and our job is to convince/annoy/facilitate them into wanting it. You believe it can be done in contract negotiations. You must agree that there will be tremendous costs associated with doing this in any reasonably short time frame (< 10 years). Now, the question is, who will eat those costs? I say get management to eat them.
I think that we actually agree more than you think. In effect it is good we had this debate. I don't know if you are reading what I write or are deliberately altering what I said. I said specifically that loose scope does not cause mainline growth. It is independent.
To sum up your position (or what I think your position is):
1. If we recapture 70/76 jet flying it will not affect flying for current mainline jobs - I agree (remember, just pilots changing their ID badges)
2. Mainline growth or contraction primarily rests on the business plans of management, not on scope restrictions - I agree
3. Recapturing 70/76 seat flying is good for Delta pilots - I agree
It seems the only point we disagree on is how to recapture the flying. I believe that management has to want this to happen and our job is to convince/annoy/facilitate them into wanting it. You believe it can be done in contract negotiations. You must agree that there will be tremendous costs associated with doing this in any reasonably short time frame (< 10 years). Now, the question is, who will eat those costs? I say get management to eat them.
What I take issue with is this:
I do not like the fact that our MEC is mum on the issue. For good reason or not. I understand the whole big game plan and showing your pair of Aces issue. I do, but people are growing tired of it.
I also agree that we will have to buy it back for more than we sold it for. I never once said that we needed to solely ask for it in section 6. It will have to happen in section six and that is the point that many people like to make, myself included. (That is unless management comes to us first)
I would love to facilitate the company wanting these jets here. I know that a certain well connected individual on the DAL-N side of things has long stated that the company would come to us. His reasoning is sound. I also agree with him. I also think that the company for cost issues will ask us to put those jets on mainline.
What I want to see is a MEC strongly and convincingly state that the scope slide is over. We will not give any more jets to the DCI side of the operation. (70/76 seats), We will make the company commit to not renewing contracts when they come due. I know the cost associated with this, and we see eye to eye on recapturing this. What I do not want to see is us giving more flying away. Enough is enough. I do not really care how we do it, as long as it is done. Of course the cheapest option and the one that costs the least amount of capital is favorable. I understand the economics of your statement.
I am not for taking it in the shorts to get a few seats back, what I want us to do is hold the line at a minimum and to recapture when possible. I get how hard this is going to be. I was not born yesterday. I just want to see the commitment from the leadership. To date, I have been listening and have not heard it. That is where my angst comes from. Also, I do not like the tactics of accuse, dismiss, and belittle. I know it is temporarily effective, but does not show long term success.
I do not like the idea of a flow as it resets DCI costs, which IMHO is a unseen consequence which would once again promote outsourcing. I see that as a short term fix that has long term issues.
As I stated a few pages ago, AMR and CAL's position economically is not about Scope.
We do agree, and as you can see I am reasonable, or at least I try to be
