Big cuts at Delta

[Old Crow]

What is the definition of understaffed at Delta. I don't believe you are considered understaffed while work rules allow pilots to sit at home for 20 days of the month. I know that some of the recalled folks have not even been retrained. Dont's misinterpret the fact that some international and long domestic lines require it, however, the majority still work very little for a regular line. Average line holder works 11 days a month, reserve line only 7.

When Delta negotiates it's new package. I'm sure they will not be understaffed.

 

[surplus1]

Lowecur,

There may be a lot of pay cuts and layoffs, but that doesn't mean mainly pilots. The one thing pilots have on their side are the FARs (Fed Aviation Regs), concerning duty rigs, amount of flying per week, and per day. That is something pilots still have, and that won't be taken away---
Bye Bye--General Lee

General,

It doesn't sound like you've spent much time "flying to FARs". If you're counting on that for "protection", 5000 pilots might be a high number. There are no "rigs" in the FARs and if you guys ever have to put in 30 hours a week of block time or bid 95-hour lines, not of "credit time" but of block time, coupled with 16-hour duty days, plus "legal to start, legal to finish", the world you've been living in will not be recognizable.

Whatever you do, I wouldn't recommend counting on the FARs to protect you from anything. I wouldn't wish that on any pilot.

 

[michael707767]

Contract 2000 was poorly written to provide job protections. It is a deal which will not stand legal scrutiny. The RJDC is not anti scope - they promote properly written scope. But this is not a scope debate. I'm just telling you that any attempt by ALPA to sink Delta, then give their members a convenient life raft on so called "permitted aircraft types" is going to be as successful as ALPA's other attempts to limit their "non preferred" pilots at the behest of their "preferred" pilots. We are at that line in the sand. Further aggression will not be tolerated.

~~~^~~~

I don't think you understand. Lets say the RJDC wins and eliminates DAL scope, or gets it back to contract 96 where you could have unlimited 70 seaters. There still would be nothing in our contract or your contract which says the Delta pilots cannot fly a 70 seater. If we are willing to underbid you to get them (and I'm not saying we should) there is nothing legally preventing that. As it stands now, and as it could stand in the future, there is nothing legally against a Delta pilot flying a 70 seat RJ. Now, if the way they fly it is a J4Js deal, that's a different story. But if Delta chooses to put RJs on the mainline and staff them with Delta pilots, there is nothing you could do about it and no judge would give you relief, since there is nothing to get relief from.

Keep in mind, I don't think that will happen. Just the opposite, I think DCI will end up with more 70 seaters. But legally, nothing prevents Delta from operating RJs.

 

[michael707767]

Average line holder works 11 days a month, reserve line only 7.

Old Crow, you are just flat wrong. The average line holder is right about 14-15 days a month. There are a couple of catagories where the reserves guys are not flying much, but in the majority of them, the reserves are being used about as much or more than the regular line holders. Greenslips are flying out the door, and they don't use them unless they are out of reserves.

 

[Golfcart Man]

The RJDC is not anti scope - they promote properly written scope. ~~~^~~~

What exactly would be "properly written scope"?

 

[surplus1]

I don't think you understand. Lets say the RJDC wins and eliminates DAL scope, or gets it back to contract 96 where you could have unlimited 70 seaters. There still would be nothing in our contract or your contract which says the Delta pilots cannot fly a 70 seater.

Mike,

With all due respect, I think it is you that doesn't understand; not because you can't but because you don't want to, which is natural.

What you say is correct, there is nothing in your PWA that prevents DAL from operating any airplane, except of course the "cost" of your contractual provisions. Simply put, you are not competitive. Also, it is not just your PWA, it is the entire infrastructure of the Company. The "burden" makes the operation of this aircraft financially impractical. The error in your contract is not what you don't allow the company to do, it is what you "permit" the company to do, i.e., outsource anything.

The problem is the result of your attempts to "undo" the error. Once made, it can't be reversed. Your thinking says that it can and changes to your "scope" reflect that thinking. That's mistake number two.

Your "scope" will not go away even if the RJDC wins. What will go away is your ability to change it at random. In other words, you will lose the ability to retroactively eliminate the outsourcing that you allowed. You may also have to give up the limits that you have tried to impose on that outsourcing; possibly all of them. Like it or not, it is highly probable that you will no longer have any say in what Delta's other subsidiaries may or may not do.

If we are willing to underbid you to get them (and I'm not saying we should) there is nothing legally preventing that.

Again you are 100% correct. However, you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. Yes, you can underbid as much as you choose. You forget that we can then underbid you in turn. You can change what you will fly for and you can remove all your benefits and all your work rules, and your pension plan if you so choose. But, you are powerless to change the other non-pilot costs associated with Delta's mainline operation.

Finally, don't overlook the fact that while there is nothing that "legally" prevents you from underbidding us for whatever you want, there is also nothing that "legally" prevents us from underbidding you for whatever we want. I'm sure you will tell me that your "scope" prevents that. I will counter by telling you that your "scope" is nothing more than a contractual provision that the company has agreed to in the past. In the future, the company can just as readily refuse to agree to that again. In that case, your "scope" will not be eliminated by the RJDC, it will be eliminated by the company. What you could do about that in the past is not at all the same. Today, you can do virtually nothing about it.

When our "bidding" for the flying that you do (in response to your bidding for the flying that we do) becomes of interest to the company, you will lose the bid. As the song says, "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." You aren't going to win this pot with a pair of deuces and one Queen.

Am I saying we should do that? NO! What I am saying is that one pilot group bidding for the flying of another pilot group, in the same company, may be "legal" but it is also stupid. That makes your arguments specious. I'm sure you will do whatever you please but my advice would be....... don't go there for you won't come out ahead.

Keep in mind, I don't think that will happen. Just the opposite, I think DCI will end up with more 70 seaters. But legally, nothing prevents Delta from operating RJs.

What you seem to miss, and I understand why, is the fact that Delta is already operating RJs; hundreds of them. Your group just isn't flying them. If Delta decides to operate more, whether they be of the same size or larger, then Delta will do that. You will stomp your feet and cry foul, but Delta will do it anyway. As you correctly point out, there is nothing that legally prevents Delta from doing that. There is also nothing that "legally" requires Delta to put you in their cockpits. All that you have is a contractual proviso that was negotiated in very different times, and which is highly questionable (legally) to begin with. That's a pretty weak hand in today's world.

If Delta decides that it wants more 70-seaters at one or more of the DCI carriers, Delta will do that and your "scope" will be changed to "permit" it, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Likewise, if Delta decides that it wants one or more DCI carriers to operate its new EMB- whatevers, Delta will do that, and your "scope" will be changed to "permit" it, regardless of what you "bid" or don't "bid".

Times have changed my friend and you are no longer in control of the situation, the Company is. Sure you have a voice but the strength of that voice is diminishing every day. While your standing on the brink of a precipice you might consider that you have bigger fish to fry than who flies which RJ. The jobs you need to protect are the one's that you have, not the ones that you would like to get. I find no particular pleasure in that but neither am I blind to the reality of current events.

If you refuse to do what the Company wants there will be bankruptcy and you will ultimately be forced to do what the Company wants. The same thing applies to us. My point is simple, this mess has already gone beyond "the point of no return". There is no going back, so either you figure out where to divert or there is going to be a ditching. Pick a diversion point beyond your range and the ditching is guaranteed. Better get the engineer to run those numbers again, and hope to he!! the navigator really knows where you are.

It is not in your best interests to make matters worse by getting into bidding wars with other pilot groups that are controlled by the same Company. You can't win those wars and if you start them there's a good chance that you will not survive to fight future wars. The infighting is not beneficial to anyone and right now it is less beneficial to you than it is to us. Keep that in mind as you make your decisions. The "bids" are still open.

 

[michael707767]

Mike,

With all due respect, I think it is you that doesn't understand; not because you can't but because you don't want to, which is natural.

I don't think you follow what I am talking about. You may have missed the earlier posts. I am not going to disagree with anything you said, because it is irrelevant to my discussion.

My point was about a court injunction mentioned by the pilot with no name.(~~~^~~~) He said if the Delta MEC tries to get a deal where the Delta pilots fly a 70 seater at the mainline, the RJDC will get an injunction to stop it. I was pointing out that since there is nothing legally or contractually preventing it, no judge would give you such an injunction. I was not commenting on anything regarding scope, our contracts or the merits therein.

 

[DAL737FO]

What you seem to miss, and I understand why, is the fact that Delta is already operating RJs; hundreds of them. Your group just isn't flying them.

Exactly, we have the most liberal scope clause in the industry and we are still being slammed as inhibiting your career. Go Figure.

If Delta decides to operate more, whether they be of the same size or larger, then Delta will do that. You will stomp your feet and cry foul, but Delta will do it anyway.

So it is your belief that Delta can just come in tomorrow and say "Sorry Dalpa but we are going to put 200 70 seat RJ's at the connection airlines"

As you correctly point out, there is nothing that legally prevents Delta from doing that.

Only a legally binding contract. Even in BK they have to go before a judge to get what they want. A lot of people are under the misconception that contracts just go out the window once you're in BK. Sorry but it didn't happen that way at United or US Air.

There is also nothing that "legally" requires Delta to put you in their cockpits. All that you have is a contractual proviso that was negotiated in very different times, and which is highly questionable (legally) to begin with.

The above is purely your opinion.
That's a pretty weak hand in today's world.

If Delta decides that it wants more 70-seaters at one or more of the DCI carriers, Delta will do that and your "scope" will be changed to "permit" it, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Could you explain how this would happen and I don't mean your fantasy explanation of a judge saying the scope is illegal. I mean a more realistic explantion. If you mean voluntarily being Dalpa relaxing the scope clause I can assure you that is not going to happen without other job security provisions.

Likewise, if Delta decides that it wants one or more DCI carriers to operate its new EMB- whatevers, Delta will do that, and your "scope" will be changed to "permit" it, regardless of what you "bid" or don't "bid".

See above about our scope
.

How about this for a scenario. ASA and Comair IPO with Delta retaining 51% interest like expressjet. We don't lose our feed and we make a little cash to put in the company coffers. Maybe that would put this whole RJDC thing to bed.