General Lee said:
Surplus1,
I think you have forgotten what your purpose here at Delta is. Comair and ASA FEED mainline, and also offer some point to point flights. But, your primary responsibility is to feed us at the hubs.
General, that is your opinion and the mantra of your group. It is presumptious and specious. Otherwise, it has little to do with reality. If your company had created my little airline you might have a point, but the fact is it didn't. You bought us, but you didn't create us.
Given the fact that we carried a higher percentage of our own passengers vs those "connecting" to your airplanes before you bought us and, to the best of my knowledge, we still do (60/40 roughly), there is considerable question as to who feeds whom. Realistically, that is all irrelevant.
We don't feed you and you don't feed us. We operate in different markets. That doesn't mean we go to different airports. It means that you fly between points and at times when the market (supply of passengers) warrants the size aircraft that your company operates. We operate between airports and at times when the supply of passengers matches the capacity of our equipment. The equation is not about "feed", it is about having the right size equipment for any existing market. Frequency is also a factor in serving a particular market. The customer, who pays your salary and mine, prefers 4 RJ flights between two points to one 737 flight. You and I don't decide that either, market forces do.
Although I understand why you would like to be the determinant of who we are, why we exist and what we should or should not do, the truth is you aren't. You can make yourself feel good with the illusion but it has no impact on reality.
The market, not Delta pilots, not the Delta MEC and not ALPA, is what determines where we go, how often we do it and how many of these pesky little airplanes that we fly will be in the fleet. If you can reach that understanding instead of worrying about who is first or second on your fictional totem pole. It's not about your ego or mine, it's about producing revenue that exceeds expenses. At this point we are doing that and you are not. This isn't rocket science, General.
You are second on the totempole. Sorry about that, but it is true. After 9-11 you guys did a great job "backing us up"--by filling in the gaps and expanding like a wildfire in California.
I, and I think most of my peers, are fully aware that Delta's core business is the mainline. We really don't have a problem with that, and we're not nearly as concerned about the image of who is where on and imaginary totempole. Totem poles are related only to your egos and really have nothing to do with Delta's business. If you want to be first on the totempole, that's OK with us. All of "DCI" is only half your size. If you wan't to see yourself as "king of the hill", that's allright, it has nothing to do with how many airplanes of what size the company operates, and nothing to do with who flys them.
We haven't done any better job of "backing you up" since 9-11 than we did before 9-11. We were not backing you up then and we are not backing you up now. That thought process is just one more of your illusions. We have a different market, that's all. 9/11 did create a big change in the supply of passengers in many markets. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for us, that market change redered a lot of your size aircraft economically unfeasible between a number of points, including the company's hubs. The supply of your product exceeded the demand for service. That is why we grew and you shrunk. This is a business General. It's purpose is to make money for the investors. Neither one of us exists so that we can enjoy flying airplanes of our preference. That's another thing that you folks seem to have difficulty in grasping.
The Company has to be able to operate the right size aircraft on each of its routes. You should have no role in deciding what that is and neither should we. When that aircraft is of a size allocated to you, it will operate on that route and you will fly it. When the appropriate size is an aircraft allocated to us it will operate on that route and we will fly it. I say again, it's not rocket science.
Your real problem isn't what aircraft is the right size and I know that. Your problem is that you resent the fact that we are flying the smaller jets because you think you should be doing it instead. When you attempt to make that happen, at our expense, that's when we come to a parting of the ways.
Now, the passengers are actually back---and it is time for us to come back in numbers and with the growth. You don't want to give up your growth---and that is obvious.
I'm glad the passengers are coming back and hope their number continues to increase. When that calls for the use of one of your aircraft on a given route, we have no problem with that. If the Company can make more money between A/B with the 737 than the CR7, use the 737. If that need requires 100 more 737s that's just fine. We have no objection to your growing and never have, that attitude is your bag.
You are the ones that object to our growth and you are the ones that consistently attempt to stop it. We object to that because it is
artificial. Of course we would like to continue to grow, just as you would. The difference is that we are not trying to prevent your growth, we are willing to live with the dictates of the market. You are doing the opposite.
You seek to prevent our growth regardless of the market. That we are unwilling to accept. Additionally, we think it's kind of dense.
Some of you would like to bring larger aircraft down to the regional level---and that would bring down the benefits and pay also.
Bye Bye--General Lee
We have made no effort to bring larger aircraft down to the regional level. Up to now, that is a false allegation and represents only your fears. On the other hand, you are actively engaged in attempting to bring our small aircraft into your tent and without us. If you continue to do that, eventually you will cause what you fear. In other words you will wind up forcing us to vie with you for the larger aircraft, just as you are now vying with us for the small aircraft that we fly. If you're really worried about bringing down the pay and benefits, stop trying to get the samll aircraft.
The most simple solution to all of this is for you to stay on your side of the fence and we will stay on our side. You fly the big airplanes, we fly the small ones. Don't tell us how many little planes we should have and we wont tell you how many big planes you should have. Let the market decide. Then we can all live happily ever after.
The fence is at 70 seats. It's an arbitrary line, but we did not contest it so we can accept it. You have crossed that line by attempting to move the fence to 50-seats and limit the number of 70-seaters, after the fact.
That is unacceptable and will continue to be. If you continue to pursue that course of action it will result in attempts by us to move the fence to 100 seats.
That's not something we want to do, it is something your actions may force us to do. If that should happen, the war we're in now will look like a grade school spitting contest compared to the war that will come. As soon as you give up your efforts to restrict the 70-seaters, the conflict will go away.
You've heard this before time and again and I have heard your story time and again. Nothing has changed. Now, you can go hug the totempole and worry about your position on it or you can get real and deal with the issues. I don't believe in totempoles, they are primitive symbols of mythical beliefs.
