ASA getting RJ 900's

[rf285]

Please don't let those planes come here DALPA! I would like to work for a career airline someday! Draw a line in the sand now!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Joe Merchant - Thank you.
General - This fight is over representation, not scope directly. And even ou must admit, ALPA, is trying to shift jobs on a current aircraft order from one group of pilots to another. As our only representative, ASA pilots have every right to be unhappy about what our representative is trying to do.
fr285 - Those airplanes are already here. It is the exact same type I'm getting on to go fly in a few minutes.

 

[rf285]

It may be the same type, but all of them belong at mainline! Fire away!

 

[JoeMerchant]

Please don't let those planes come here DALPA! I would like to work for a career airline someday! Draw a line in the sand now!

rf285,

1. There is no legal entity called "DALPA". We can use the term "DALPA" for clarification purposes, but legally there is only one bargaining agent for BOTH ASA and DAL. That bargaining agent is ALPA. It has a Duty of Fair Representation for BOTH ASA and DAL pilots.

2. For some of us, ASA is a "career airline" and we would like to improve that career HERE at ASA. If you want to work somewhere else, please fill out an application at your "career airline" of choice. Then we will both be happy. Use caution however as the "career airline" of choice isn't what it once was.

Joe

 

[JoeMerchant]

It may be the same type, but all of them belong at mainline! Fire away!

It was this flawed logic of "mainline" and "regional" that got us in this pickle in the first place. Your trying to push this camel back in the tent, and it is way too late for that. All airplanes should be "mainline", however egos and flawed bargaining practices, with a dash of myopia has neutered ALPA.

 

[rf285]

Granted, we can't put the airframes on property back into pandora's box. That would be unfair to people who's jobs depend on them, but new aircraft (CRJ900/705 or all ERJ 170 family) should go to mainline. IMHO

 

[michael707767]

Joe Merchant - Thank you.
General - This fight is over representation, not scope directly. And even ou must admit, ALPA, is trying to shift jobs on a current aircraft order from one group of pilots to another.

Fins you are full of crap. As you yourself pointed out in another threat, those aircraft will still go to ASA without any scope changes, they will just be flown with 70 seats. No one at the Delta MEC has any ideas that those aircraft will come here, no matter what happens.

Besides, is that how it works now? Order aircraft that don't fit the scope clause and then by virtue of the fact that they are on order we have to let em go?

 

[FDJ2]

General Lee,

If you study ALPA history, you will see that ALPA is on the hook for any mistakes made by local MECs. Look at the Duke/Spellacy lawsuit.

Joe, if you did your homework, you'd know that ALPA won that lawsuit as a matter of law. The only guys who walked away with any money were the lawyers and the Duke plaintiffs who settled out of court.

 

[spitfire1500]

I think the DL attorney is mixed up. Thse 900's would be Mesa planes. Since they were the launch customer for the 900 they made an agreement that their planes come first off the line and they have them on order.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fins you are full of crap. As you yourself pointed out in another threat, those aircraft will still go to ASA without any scope changes, they will just be flown with 70 seats. No one at the Delta MEC has any ideas that those aircraft will come here, no matter what happens.

Michael: ALPA forced too many 50 seat RJ's on Delta through their arbitrary scope. I thought everyone would agree that Delta over committing to 50 seaters was a bad thing. Now, ALPA seeks to do the same with the 70 seater. As I wrote elsewhere, I have no problem with the CR709's going to Delta. My problem is that my union is negotiating against my pilots in Court. That is bad faith and a complete failure of ALPA's fiduciary duty to my pilot group.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I think the DL attorney is mixed up. Thse 900's would be Mesa planes. Since they were the launch customer for the 900 they made an agreement that their planes come first off the line and they have them on order.

You mean Freedom, don't you? Of course, maybe he is talking about the E170 / E190's at Chaupublimidatlantic Air Express.

 

[FDJ2]

Michael: ALPA forced too many 50 seat RJ's on Delta through their arbitrary scope.

That's rediculous. DAL can fly any number of any type of aircraft it wants. No one forced DAL to buy the largest fleet of gas guzzling cash drains in the industry. That was a poor business decision on the part of management.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Joe, if you did your homework, you'd know that ALPA won that lawsuit as a matter of law. The only guys who walked away with any money were the lawyers and the Duke plaintiffs who settled out of court.

And if you had done your homework you would know that ALPA settled the cases they knew they were going to lose and Haber made the smart call with the cases he represented. Further, had the Plaintiff's not split off their opportunity to win would have been much better.

 

[~~~^~~~]

That's rediculous. DAL can fly any number of any type of aircraft it wants. No one forced DAL to buy the largest fleet of gas guzzling cash drains in the industry. That was a poor business decision on the part of management.

No DAL can't fly any number of airplanes it wants. Here, I will let one of your fellow Delta pilots argue with you and save myself some typing........

Originally Posted by michael707767....
Fins you are full of crap. As you yourself pointed out in another threat, those aircraft will still go to ASA without any scope changes, they will just be flown with 70 seats. No one at the Delta MEC has any ideas that those aircraft will come here, no matter what happens.

 

[FDJ2]

And if you had done your homework you would know that ALPA settled the cases they knew they were going to lose and Haber made the smart call with the cases he represented. Further, had the Plaintiff's not split off their opportunity to win would have been much better.

Another Fins statement absolutely devoid of any factual basis. One could just as easily state that the Duke pilots settled because they knew they had no chance on appeal.

Regardless, cases that are settled out of court prove nothing for either party, on the other hand, the Spellacy case, which was settled in court does and it represents the law of the land. In that case ALPA won an absolute victory as a matter of law. I'd love to see Haber enter the court room citing the precedent of a case that was settled out of court, but perhaps that's all the RJDC has left, besides just spinning its wheels.

 

[michael707767]

No DAL can't fly any number of airplanes it wants. Here, I will let one of your fellow Delta pilots argue with you and save myself some typing........

Originally Posted by michael707767....
Fins you are full of crap. As you yourself pointed out in another threat, those aircraft will still go to ASA without any scope changes, they will just be flown with 70 seats. No one at the Delta MEC has any ideas that those aircraft will come here, no matter what happens.

Where in my statement did I say Delta cannot buy and fly any size or number of aircraft it wants? Nothing in the Delta pilots contract prevents Delta from operating any aircraft it wants. As long as they are flown by Delta pilots, Delta could operate anything and as many as they want. Our contract allows for outsourcing of some aircraft but puts not limits whatsoever on what Delta itself operates.

 

[FDJ2]

No DAL can't fly any number of airplanes it wants. Here, I will let one of your fellow Delta pilots argue with you and save myself some typing........

Originally Posted by michael707767....
Fins you are full of crap. As you yourself pointed out in another threat, those aircraft will still go to ASA without any scope changes, they will just be flown with 70 seats. No one at the Delta MEC has any ideas that those aircraft will come here, no matter what happens.

Fins, nothing you have posted refutes the fact that DAL can fly as many of any size aircraft it wants. For you to state otherwise proves your ignorance on the issue, which is no surprise since you don't even understand your own lawsuit.

Michael's post doesn't state that DAL can't operate as many CRJ900s as it wants to, with as many seats as it chooses to cram in. Moreover, Michael's post is not the DAL PWA.

If DAL wanted to buy 200 CRJ900s configured with 79 seats nothing in the DAL PWA would prevent that.

 

[~~~^~~~]

ASA Not getting CRJ900's if ALPA can help it

FDJ2:
So you see no relation between your scope and the number of 50 seat RJ's Delta has? You, my friend, are disingenuous. I would call you an idiot, but I'm pretty sure you know what ALPA's intent was and are just taking a stab at misleading others.
When I hired in Delta had the ability to outsource the 70 seater in unlimited numbers. Your scope changed and clamped an arbitrary limit on the 70's. Since 70's were not available, Delta bought 50 seaters.
Sure, additional 70 seaters could have been bought and Delta could have added a fleet type to your property and your MEC could have negotiated pay rates on the airplane. I would have loved so see what your MEC could have negotiated on the pay rates back in the day....
</p>

 

[MedFlyer]

If DAL wanted to buy 200 CRJ900s configured with 79 seats nothing in the DAL PWA would prevent that.

Except that there is no payscale for the plane at mainline, so there would be no one to fly the plane. Given DL's mainline cost structure and the more limited revenue of the 79 seat plane, I doubt that a 79 seater will ever be viable at DL mainline. Not to mention, how difficult it would be for DL to finance these planes.

In theory, mainline pilots should be flying 79 seaters. However, the economics of DL's cost strucuture don't support it. DL can't even make money flying far larger planes (that have lower unit costs), so how do you expect DL to fly a much smaller plane (with much higher costs) and make money?

What will likely happen is an exact repeat of what happened with the 50 seater. DL wanted a bigger plane (the 70 seater), but DALPA restricted the number of 70 seaters. Of course, DL mainline could have flown the 70 seaters, but it would have lost DL tons of money. So DL management tried to make up for the 70 seater by buying more 50 seaters and flying them at a higher frequency. It was a failed strategy.

I see another repeat of this with the 79 seater.

 

[michael707767]

Except that there is no payscale for the plane at mainline, so there would be no one to fly the plane. Given DL's mainline cost structure and the more limited revenue of the 79 seat plane, I doubt that a 79 seater will ever be viable at DL mainline. Not to mention, how difficult it would be for DL to finance these planes.

.

See Fins, MedFlyer at least has an intelligent arguement. I don't agree with him, but you can argue the economics of the situtation. However, there is in fact nothing in the pilot contract preventing Delta from operating any aircraft it wants. Never did I say our contract ensured Delta could operate them economically. Thats a totally seperate arguement.

However, I do believe we could operate a 79 seater economically from a pilot standpoint. Whether or not Delta could get the other employee costs to fit that aircraft is entirely up to Delta, not us. Seems to be working for the mainline to fly the EMB-175 at Air Canada, I see no reason it could not be repeated at Delta.