Everyone needs to memorize what Scoop says here about simple "No" votes. You can disagree now, but when the time comes, the truth of this statement will become evident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoop

I think we can - my problem is that I do not trust our company and our union not to simply renegotiate Scope again in the future after they grow to the next Scope limit, or actually "pause" since no Scope limit has actually been more than a "pause" in growth vice an actual long term limit.

His second two points go together well...our union does not have a good track record of projecting how their concessions/agreements will play out...and harm us for generations to come (a little added drama). The examples are too numerous to list and too depressing to think about!

Very good question... how much would a mainline pilot be willing to work for to regain and fly a 76 seater? Let's hear to some dollar amounts.

If mainline pilots would be willing to fly them for $70 an hour like the regionals are, do you think management would be all over this-in order to regain synergies, or do you think they have 6+ different regionals in order to keep dis-unity in place?

I'd be OK with my current 88A rate, as long as I could fly with the doors off, and had no legs longer than KATL-KMCN. Avionics are compatible with current MD88 config, so little transition training is required:



However, the Cub NG would require 73N pay, and I'd be willing to stretch the leg out to Valdosta.

... and it is perhaps more complex than that. There is some fear that if ALPA brought the 76 seater to mainline for competitive pay that it would cannibalize MD90/737/757 flying. Part of the reasoning for keeping it off the property was to limit its numbers.

Again you missed the point of my post: Once a TA has been reached, it is too late!

A TA is just that: a Tentative AGREEMENT. It means our Union leadership has agreed with the Company. Like it or not, our hand will have been played at that point. The MEC may subsequently vote it down or the pilots may vote it down...not bending to the strong arming tactics of the Administration...but regardless, they will not be able to achieve significant, tangible improvements beyond that original TA. Because at that point, there would be no real mechanism for achieving significant improvements or changes beyond a job action...which will not happen under Moak.

With all due respect ACL, what the Reps say to you now is not necessarily what they will do later, though it may make us all feel better in the short run. In past negotiations, many a radical-no-voter has been turned under pressure. But go on living the dream for now...

I would wait and see what we get, and then how the Reps vote. One thing you forget is DAL wants a deal done soon. A deal done without the press watching. A deal that allows them to have their pilots on board with their next plans. Voting "No" to a substandard TA by the Reps would derail the timeline of the company, and is not something the company would want to contend with.

A slight of hand is that the NC would not put the final agreement on any deal until getting the blessing from the reps. That would be what these constant updates and Special MEC meeting are about.

It is not about living a dream, it is about knowing that the Reps understand the importance of DALPA getting a TA that the pilots will vote "yes" for and a ta that will allow DALPA to prove they have the best interests of the pilots they represent at the forefront of every decision.

Of course, there are probably Reps that will vote "yes" for any agreement, but the majority are not willing to sacrifice for a quick deal. Your reps is one of them that will vote NO if the deal fails to meet a min level, and is not afraid to do it. The words spoken by many of the systems reps is this; " A NO vote is easy, it is the YES vote that is hard." I agree with that and would be in the same mindset if I were around the table.

* also a point to add: One or two elections cycles ago I would have agreed, but there are enough new reps that are there for the right reasons. Not all of the new reps, but most, and they have the support around the table to vote down a lackluster TA is need be. This is a significant change from a few years ago.

These two statements by Gloopy and ACL seem interdependent...Which is unfortunate for those of us hoping for scope improvements (or even just a line in the sand).


But hey, the NC is relatively junior, so we got that going for us! My apologies for being a pessimist but I've been through too many of these scope-conceding agreements.

I would say its bad because whatever the value of more large RJ's is to the company, they are never, ever going to give us 100% (or more! LOL!) of that value in the first place. And honestly, how much revenue, how many pax, how much of the system can they move with 10 more or even 50 more 76 seaters? Yet we know how many pilot jobs we best case don't get and worst case lose. Not to mention we can see the negative pressure on the bottom end of the fleet because of the outsourcing in the first place.

As bad as the Alaska situation is, all we're competing with there are lazy marketing managers who don't know how to or want to run an airline. The pilot part of it is close to a wash because the AS pilots are at least in the same universe as we are. Unleashing the hounds of RFP/ASA outsourcing is a harpoon with a floating barrel attatched to it for every single jet that management gets to perpetually shop around to the lowest labor busting bidder.

To partner with them any more than we are in that process in hopes that we will get a cut is a very bad idea. To think the net result of more of this will be a net positive, well I'm pretty sure they will see to it that it isn't.

I would not want to project what the "significant progress" is, but one thing I do gather from the reps is this: The outcry from rumors about scope sales hit their desks and hard. I gather they get it, and know where it will lead. I will wait and judge the final product.

There are many things that we have stated over the last five years, but one of them was Section 1 needed to be negotiated independently of the rest of the deal. Well that means that we do not trade scope for a gain somewhere else and we do not gain scope for a trade outside of section 1. That is both good and bad depending on the terms of the deal.

A great many rumors have been floated here about what the opener was, or what the company was asking for. Pilots that write or just read this board e-mailed and called their reps very angry about the prospects. My understanding is that this reaffirmed the belief the reps had on scope. I could be wrong, but that is the takeaway I had from multiple discussions with many different reps.

The takeaway that every rep has is that DAL pilots want DAL flying flow by DAL pilots. The paradigm of pay et al has changed, and many, including those sitting around the table understand how the economics and economies of scale have changed. RA wants DAL Capt's in the jets, well there is one way to prove that.

I too am watching and will make sure to use every means available to me to make sure we fly more DAL flying.

We already have CRJ900 (76 seater) rates. They are IMHO on the low side, even with our mainline benefits and work rules. We also have very low E190 rates, but I think JB E190 rates as the floor, plus reasonable premiums to account for our massive per pilot revenue premium is a very constructive way to engage the company on this issue. As for the 70/76 seaters, it would be a step below the E190 rates but in no way less than our current CBA rates.

Yeah I know, the company could shift the entire fleet to mainline RJ's to lower pilot pay because we don't have LBP. I just don't see that happening. They don't make multi billion dollar decisions just because of the differences in our pay tables between aircraft types. Besides, what would be the better chance we would get 76 seaters on property: current rates, or at palatable LBP 747 rates?