Brand Scope

[surplus1]

Surplus1,
The reason we parked so many aircraft is because the passenger base got smaller after 9-11, and now they are back! Guess what that means? It means it is time for us to reclaim the flying that was handed to you when we lacked passengers.

General,

I'll say again as I've said before, over and over, and over. Neither I nor anyone I know in the RJDC has any objection to Delta replacing any Comair flight with a mainline flight. I repeat, NO OBJECTION. If the route warrants one of your aircraft in preference to one of ours, the Company should use it.

The issues that divide us have nothing to do with the Company's selection and assignment of one or more of the aircraft types that you fly, to any route that we fly. That is how it is supposed to work.

The problem is your attempt to prevent the Company from selecting the right aircraft type or from assigning the right aircraft type, unless you fly it.

You know this but you keep trying to spin your predatory intent into your being victimized by RJ's. The same old story in the same old way. A political lie that serves your interests. The threat of the RJ is like the WMD of Iraq. Nonexistant.

We believe that market forces must determine the type aircarft that is best for a route and the Company, not the Delta pilots, must decide how many aircraft and what type it will chose to deploy from time to time.

You argue about the aircraft and its comfort and a lot of other diversionary tactics, but you can't hide the truth. Your issue is not really about the aircraft, it is about who flies it. You would not complain at all if the RJs were flown by Delta pilots. You are complaining because they are flown by ASA and Comair and other pilots.

Well my friend, the only way they can be flown by Delta pilots is if you replace the pilots that fly them now. Comair pilots are not willing to allow you to replace us.

When it is too hard for you to replace us directly at Comair, which thanks to the Company it has been so far, you change your strategy by attempting to transfer the 70-seat equipment to yourselves. To us (and secretly to you), that is the equivalent of replacing us. Move the 70-seat jets from Comair to Delta and we will lose 270 positions in that type and in turn furlough 270 of our most junior pilots. Not because these aircraft are not needed, but because YOU want to fly them in our place. As yet you have not succeeded in this transfer because the Company has refused to agree. However, our union has no problem with supporting your efforts.

You have artificially restricted the total number of 70-seat aircraft that the Company may deploy. In other words, if you can't fly them nobody else can fly them (sounds just like the NW pilots, but I digress). The net result of your action which altered the status quo from "unlimited" to only 57 overall, has directly damaged the promotion opportunities of all Comair pilots and reduced their income, real and potential, by millions of dollars. Not only does this not bother you, you actually believe that we should applaud your behavior. Think again, that is not going to happen.

But, you and your RJDC friends (thugs) don't like that. Why don't you guys focus on something else that really does affect your future income and earning potential---like the new Jetblue rates. Call your RJDC buddies and see if they can shoot over a "mean" letter to David Neeleman--I am sure he will just laugh it off too.

You are correct, I and my RJDC friends do NOT like that. If it makes you feel better, call us thugs. You remind me of the pilgrims who called the Indians savages when they objected to the theft of their land. Perhaps, like the Indians we will eventually lose this struggle but one thing you can be certain of, General. We will fight for what is ours. We may be thugs, but you are thieves. Personally, I'd rather be a thug than a theif.

Yes, the low rates at JetBlue will affect us but do not gloat too soon for it will affect you also. You are the ones that want this airplane, you are the ones that would normally be flying it should the Company decide to buy. Yours are the wages that will have to go down if you want to get it and the pressure of those low wages may well cause the Company to consider giving it to us.

Yes, I know that your Scope clause prevents that. Well, remember when your scope clause didn't care how many 70-seaters we flew? I do. You changed it, because you wanted to and the Company let you. My friend, when the Company wants to and feels like it guess what, it can and will be changed again.

So don't crow too loudly about how much the JBlue rates will hurt us. They may well hurt you as much or more.

Greed is a vice.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


Ok, what? First of all, the company and Dalpa can negotiate on any NEW airplane--and there really is NOTHING you guys can do about it. IF we for some reason wanted to negotiate for ultra new 7E7s---do we have to ask you guys first? Ummmm, no. How about new CR7s? Nope. We can negotiate about anything. Now, we are the ones being grilled (look at the new proposal---they want $1 billion a year from us...) and we have the right to negotiate for something in return. I haven't seen Dalpa ask for your current CR7s, and I don't know if they will. It does look like NW will be asking for and getting new 70 seaters---and I can see your worry. Delta is asking us right now for significant savings---and that will come from a large pay cut primarily. To get that savings from you---they would have to cut all of your pay by 130%---leaving you to pay them 30% extra out of your pockets. So, since they cannot get that kind of cash form you guys---they will come to us and we will negotiate for something in return. That is how it works unfortunately. You, my friend, don't seem to understand that. Delta is looking for a certain amount of cuts---and you can not provide them with that---so they will deal with us--and we will get something in return.

As far as the Jetblue rates go---I think they will affect us--no doubt. I totally expect Dalpa to eventually capitulate on smaller aircraft---like a 100 seater---I have heard the A318 and then the A319s and A320s to replace the MD-88s/737-300s etc.----and for that A318 (or whatever) have a "Jetblue type" rate---maybe $70-80 bucks per hour for the Capt, and $50 for the FO. Then they would limit the number of 100 seaters--maybe to 100 etc so the company doesn't run wild with the low pay grade idea. That might save them additional money right there--and then that would be added to our next proposal. The Jetblue factor will hurt us, and will hurt you too---I have no doubt in that. I am sure Delta management is aware of all of that--including NWALPA's proposal---and how mcuh that is worth too. I don't think you could beat us in a deal--even if we "allowed it." That is truely a sad thing, though...


Greed is a vice, but what about survival and instinct? Wanting a lot more growth even after three years of solid growth and plenty of furloughs on the sidelines (Delta furloughs and DCI growth)---that sounds greedy to me....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

What I should say is that my belief of what brand scope should be is the elimination of out-sourcing. If it means something to someone else, then I would have to hear it before I passed judgement. Not from a third party's perception, but from the horses mouth. And like you, I want our reps to find out what DALPAs intentions are, and to pass it along.

Now you're beginning to think. I urge you to continue that because the job you save will be your own.

You say that "brand scope should be the elimination of our-sourcing". That sounds good, but do your realize that to a Delta pilot, that means the elimination of all of DCI, including Comair and ASA. Is that the same as what you mean or are you just talking about SKYW and CHQ and ACA's replacement?

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Think this through, please. Until the "horses mouth" puts the definition of "brand scope" in writing, the fact is we do NOT know what it really means. Do I trust ALPA to protect my interests? The answer is no, I do not. Why haven't they (ALPA) clearly defined the meaning of brand scope? You tell me.

I don't agree with what ALPA has done at other airlines and I'm guarded about what may happen here as a result. It's unnerving to know that there may be negotiations going on that could affect us. But it's presumptuous to assume the actual provisions of any agreement until there is a TA. The only J4J or flow-through banter has been here from people who are spreading rumors, and from no credible source.

Well perhaps it is presumptious to assume the provisions of an agreement, I'll give you that. Now let me ask you this: If there is a TA and if that TA proves the presumptions were accurate, what can we do to change it? Answer: Absolutely nothing. Therefore, the only way we can prevent disaster is to "head 'em off at the pass." If they really were'nt planning a J4J gambit or some weird flow through, neither one of us has lost anything. If they were and we prevented it, then we have also prevent the loss of our job security and our seniority.

Since the job security that we have now is highly tenuous, the Lord knows we don't need to risk any more of it by assuming good will from people with a record of greed and avarice.

You have seen what ALPA has done, not once but over and over again. There has been not one word of regret and no promise real or pretended that they will not do it again. Exposing ourselves to the assumption of good will on their part would candidly, be stupid. Let them prove the good will when we are not vulnerable to ill will. Forewarned is forearmed.

A better way to ensure our protections is with open communications, not creating barriers of animosity. We're not going to find out what's happening behind closed doors if we enrage the one's with the keys. And law suits don't lead to dialogue. The RJDCs conception that they can affect change in or out of court is wrong, and though there may be a victory or two, litigation will do more damage in the long run. Whether we want to admit it or not, we have no bargaining power, and are forced to humbly approach those who do.

We have created no barriers. Our "friends" simply do not find it necessary to communicate unless we first agree to do as they wish. That is not communication it is dictation. The one's with the keys to the door you imagine have no intention of opening it regardless of whether you frown or you smile. This process of attempting to communicate did not begin today or yesterday. In fact it began in 1991. We have been attempting to communicate since then but the frequency is always jammed. This entire process has a history, WMS. You just don't happen to know what that history is. Don't take my word for it, investigate and find out.

Look, I'm a Comair pilot. It is not my purpose in life to be unfriendly towards the pilots of any other airline. I don't have an axe to grind with Delta and they have nothing that I want. However, it appears that we, me and my fellow pilots have something that they want and they are prepared to get it any way they can. Charity begins at home. I will defend the rights of Comair pilots any day of the week and twice on Sunday, BEFORE I defend any Delta pilot. I'm not against Delta pilots, I'm just for Comair pilots. My brothers come first! My distant cousins are second.

The perception that change can be effected in the courts is not wrong. At the very least litigation keeps the wolf from the door temporarily. A successful outcome will keep it out of the house permanently. It will take nothing from any Delta pilot, it will simply prevent them from taking from us. With some luck it will also set a precedent and prevent ALPA from further predatory actions against other regional pilot members.

The truth is is doesn't matter how many pilots support the RJDC. There were only 3 names on this lawsuit when it began and there only needs to be one when it ends. It doesn't matter whether the union violates the rights of one pilot or ten thousand pilots. The bottom line is the union must not violate the rights of any member. That's what this is about.

If the majority of black people wanted slavery, it would not make slavery right. When the majority were coerced into accepting segregation for 150 years, it did not make segregation right. If the majority of regional pilots are willing to ignore unfair representation of their interests, it doesn't make it right. We are all equal members of the Air Line Pilots Association and the union must represent us fairly without regard to where we happen to be employed. It may not legally favor the USAirways pilots over the Allegheny pilots, or the Mesa pilots over the CCAir pilots, or the American Pilots over the Eagle pilots or the Delta pilots over the Comair pilots.

We must all be represented and represented fairly. That is the purpose of the RJDC movement. I don't support it because of how many "members" it has, I support it because the principles for which it stands are the right ones. I'm sorry you can't see that.

The fact that you refer to youself as a "commuter pilot" is indicative that you do not find sufficient self esteem in the job you currently have. You obviously consider yourself to be inferior in some way. I do not share your views. I'm not a commuter pilot, I'm an airline pilot and I have been for a very long time. If I worked for Delta I would be a richer airline pilot but what I am or how I see myself would not change.

The fact that you haven't learned that yet and you see yourself as a "commuter pilot" is the very reason why the pilots of small airlines have allowed themselves to become the victims of the pilots of large airlines and their own labor union. That needs to end and with a little bit of luck, we will end it.

I would like to do that with your support but if that is impossible, I will still try without it. We shall overcome.