General Lee said:
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.
