Bye Bye Air Wiskey

[acaTerry]

I don't know. There will always be the "Chaz Paddington's" who can not stand the LCC operation. They want a meal. They want 1st class to be more than a slightly larger seat, they want to feel like they are better than the other people on the plane, and they want those airline miles and clubs to "be special" in.
At least for now, everyone is a tightwad. This is seemingly **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ing the airlines to a LCC and RJ future. But when things get better with the economy, the DAL's, AA's etc will get to breathe again.
Just my take based on an uneducated, non-business degree observation.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

Let's look at the future. I see plenty of LCC competition coming up, and the Majors will have to change in ways to compete for that low fare paying customer. >>>>>>

The Comair and ASA pilots will want more 70 seaters, and they may get some more--but the clear growth in the future will include more seats at lower prices. If the company plans to get rid of the current 100 seaters (737-200s with first class seating), then it is natural for mainline to fly the newer ones, and that is what Dalpa has said will happen. These changing markets are complex, and the upstart Song and future 100 seaters will hopefully combat those LCC's successfully. Atleast Delta is trying to do something----which cannot be said about some of the other Majors.

Bye Bye--General Lee

General,

Decidedly one of your better posts. There is really nothing you said with which I disagree in substance.

Given your predictions, the only thing I continue to fail to understand is why you all found it necessary to invent a conflict of interest between us and claim that we were taking your flying.

The 50-seat regional jet nor the 70-seat regional jet have never posed any threat to the Delta pilots traditional flying and still don't. As you point out, the small RJ was not designed to compete with small narrow body and neither was the 70-seat stretch. They aren't doing that today and they will not be doing it tomorrow. Therefore, there has never been and there is now no reason to waste time and energy and divisive conflict trying to protect against nothing. You all have been jousting at windmills.

When the Company acquires a new narrow body, it is likely to be quite similar in seating capacity to the EMB-190/195. That is slightly over 100 seats (108/116) and, in my opinion, falls into a category that I would call traditional mainline flying. Therefore, it should ge assigned to the mainline and flown by mainline pilots. I see nothing wrong with that. As I've said many times before we don't want to take your flying.

Now, if you will simply agree that aircraft under 100 seats are "our flying" and stop trying to take or to prevent it, these conflicts could end and we could all live happily ever after.

As long as we exist as "separate" companies within the Delta "portfolio", there does have to be a dividing line somewhere between us. As long as that line is one that we can mutually agree to, and one that you cannot arbitrarily move whenever you want to, there is no reason for us to disagree with each other. Heck, we might even wind up humming a few bars of kum-ba-ya together. We could then focus together on a return to legitimate Scope, i.e., keeping DAL flying within the Delta owned system.

I see little logical reason why a "consolidated financial statement" could not lead to "consolidated pilot groups". Mind you, that is NOT a merger, just a different way to work together rather than against.

Of all the mega or "legacy" carriers, Delta is about the only one that seems to grasp the changing scene. Not fully, but to a greater extent than the others. It is even possible that our management might well have solved the problem, were it not for the difficulties with arbitrary labor agreements that artificially attempt to restrict the business. It is not our better compensation that hamstrings the corporation, but the restrictions on how to deploy its assets.

And NO, General, I am not advocating the elimination of Scope. I just want to see it written the right way again. It once was, but somebody dropped the ball. In my opinion, the fact that it was once correct gave Delta a head start that none of the others have been able to match (except CAL and for the same reason). Enter C2K and you guys almost followed the others into the abyss. Were it not for the unforseen tragedy and that pesky lawsuit, you would indeed have duplicated the disaster at all the others. The Company could have wound up like UAL or American, with the equivalent impact on the pilot groups.

Think about it. Instead of expending our energies hasseling with each other, let's agree to logically cut the pie so that all of us can eat well in the future. The Company is quite capable of matching the right size to the right market, if we just let them do their job, while holding them to their commitments. If you all continue to restrict the Company from competing, you will ultimately be forced to give the same concessions that UAL and AA have had to make. There is not reason why Delta can't be #1 permanently instead of #3, if you just let it. Just look at what's happened to the pilots at #1 and the company at #2 (not to mention #4 and that other one in PA). Do we really want to go there?

Regards.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,

No, I also don't want our company to end up like the others. And, I honestly don't care if you get more 70 seaters. I do care about getting our furloughs back into the cockpit, and I hope Delta eventually does make a 100 seater order that could bring them back. Apparently they are narrowing it down right now, and I bet there will be a compromise when that order is made. I think we do need some security though when it comes to total numbers---atleast in the mainline fleet. We want to keep the number of high paying jobs at a maximum if we can---and a certain number of mainline planes would probably do the trick. Then, if the company wants to get more 70 seaters to fill in the gaps---then they should do it. When I read your response I did see that you stated that we should draw the line at 100 seats. Did you mean that you would like to have 90 seaters at Comair/ASA? I am just curious. I could see Dalpa eventually giving in when it comes to more 70 seaters, but I doubt they would give in to 90 seaters---which would be fairly close to the 100 seater.

I also would like to see a lowering of the tensions between our groups, and I would have liked it if there would have been some sort of EVENTUAL preferrential hiring scheme involved, but I don't know if that would be accepted by the total group. That would have been nice----those who wanted to move up to mainline would have had an interview waiting. I don't really see that now. But, I would accept a general "satisfying" feeling between our groups--knowing that what we all wanted was achieved. I just want my friends that are furloughed to come back and enjoy that too. That is my main concern, and when they do return---I bet we will all see some compromising. And I'll say it again, if there is an order for 100 seaters, I bet ASA/Comair will also get something too. Good luck to our company and all of us.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[treetopflyer]

what, you guys are agreeing on something?

(phone ringing)

hello, this is satan....

(anonymous voice)

yeah, what's the tempurature there today???

(satan respnding)

what the..... hold on (black sabbath hold music plays)

(satan returns)

yeah, uhh.... ive got to call you back; for some reason its cold as sh** down here...

(phone ringing)

hello, duane speaking

(satan)

yeah, duane, can you call DAL, they're making friends with the DCI wholly owned carriers again....

(duane)

yeah no sweat satan....



whoa, too many days on reserve in the crashpad.

actually i agree with both of those posts.

 

[acaTerry]

...my dog is freinds with the mailman! Stop it guys!

 

[surplus1]

When I read your response I did see that you stated that we should draw the line at 100 seats. Did you mean that you would like to have 90 seaters at Comair/ASA? I am just curious. I could see Dalpa eventually giving in when it comes to more 70 seaters, but I doubt they would give in to 90 seaters---which would be fairly close to the 100 seater.

Basically the answer to your question is yes. First, the so called 90-seater CRJ is actually an 86-seat aircraft (I don't think that would negatively impact your acquisition of a new 100+ seater). Aside from that technicality, consider this.

Delta gained its advantage (of RJs) over the other legacy carriers because there were no artificial restrictions in the Delta PWA while all of the other mega contracts contained such artificial restrictions. Few could say that has not been greatly beneficial to the Company as a whole, and to the pilot groups as well. [At the same time the other "restricted contracts" have been detrimental to ALL of the carriers that had them].

Subsequently, the DMEC saw fit to succumb to the "political pressure" applied by its ALPA brothers at the big four, and the
"National" union's "policies", and emulate them by imposing a plethora of new restrictions in C2K. The tragedy of 9/11 and subsequent FM, reduced the negative impact of these new restrictions, but once again the company is already pushing the artificial restraints. While I may not be technically correct, the whole concept is close to "restraint of trade".

Now however, in the face of crisis, the other mega MEC's have either figured out or been forced to remove their airtificial restrictions. As a result, hundreds of CRJ-700s, EMB-170's and CRJ-900s are being ordered by Delta's competitors. (Skywest just ordered 30 and optioned another 80 for UAL).

If the Delta pilots continue to maintain their artifical restrictions, this simply means that the advantage gained by Delta will now be ceeded to the competition. The reverse of what happened previously. I cannot see that as beneficial to DAL/CMR/ASA pilots or to the Company as a whole. It is somewhat ironic that while your group does not wish to make concessions, you simultaneously seek to obstruct the Company's effective deployment of assets. I'm not a Harvard MBA, but common horse sense tells me that's not too smart.

Granted, the removal of the restrictions would benefit CMR and ASA pilots immediately. I realize that you are concerned about doing this while Delta pilots are on furlough. I just don't think that a position that reduces the Company's ability to compete will ultimately benefit Delta pilots, furloughed or otherwise. I think the opposite is true.

Hiring furloughed Delta pilots to fill vacancies created by new equipment at CMR and ASA is not only practical it is very possible. I just can't be done in the way your MEC approached the problem and it can't be done with a USAirways-like J4J protocol.

However, I think it could easily be done, without interviews, withour seniority resignation, and without any other encumberances, IF we take the right approach. That "right approach" is of course a matter of opinion, but I think the "carrot" was in fact extended by the CMR MEC. Your MEC Chairman either failed to comprhend it or arrogantly rejected it because "his concept" of a carrot proferred by Delta pilots, was seen by CMR pilots as a ruse on which he could not possibly deliver.

In my opinion, there is no "problem" between the pilot groups of DAL/CMR/ASA that could not be solved, in a manner beneficial to ALL, if we actually sat down and worked out a mutual understanding in which we all participate as equals. What cannot happen is an arrangement imposed by one group on the other, without its true consent.

Whichever one of us is the proverbial "fly in the ointment" must embrace an attitude adjustment. Until that happens, we all suffer the consequences of intransigence.

It is completely legitimate that you do not want any of your pilots to be used as "bargaining chips" as we seek accommodation with each other. I accept that. You all must accept that we do not want our carrers and futures to become your "bargaining chips" either. You have already used us in that way more than once and it is only when that is discontinued (by you all) that we will be able to truly "agree".

Unfortunately, we will all suffer to varying degress until an agreement is reached. So will our Company, Delta Air Lines. If there was ever a case of "penny wise and pound foolish", the current stand-off is an excellent example.

Best regards.