CMR President's Message - Paycuts anyone?

[drag]

Geeeez, is this the major airline forum?? I remember these cockpit conversations while watching CMR take mainline flying out of CVG. I guess that was "OK" because it was going to "feed the hub" and "help grow mainline." Perhaps a little "build new routes for mainline to takeover." CMR always wanted to be a major so now it's time to swim in the deep water. I firmly believe the DAL will look to outsource CMR flying to the lowest bidder. Perhaps CHQ will build future CMR routes? DAL may even spinoff CMR/ASA. The CASM is very high on 50 seaters w/ $40 oil and cheap fares. Lets not forget Mesa, Trans States, Great Lakes would love a little growth at CMR expense. Heck, those Rjs in STL (American Connection) were supposed to be delivered to Eagle. AMR leased them to Trans States. The only RJP's left will be those w/ the cheapest contracts. If DAL goes into BK, you can bet they'll 1113 CMR/ASA to or below Trans States/Mesa.

 

[bvt1151]

Geeeez, is this the major airline forum?? I remember these cockpit conversations while watching CMR take mainline flying out of CVG. I guess that was "OK" because it was going to "feed the hub" and "help grow mainline." Perhaps a little "build new routes for mainline to takeover." CMR always wanted to be a major so now it's time to swim in the deep water. I firmly believe the DAL will look to outsource CMR flying to the lowest bidder. Perhaps CHQ will build future CMR routes? DAL may even spinoff CMR/ASA. The CASM is very high on 50 seaters w/ $40 oil and cheap fares. Lets not forget Mesa, Trans States, Great Lakes would love a little growth at CMR expense. Heck, those Rjs in STL (American Connection) were supposed to be delivered to Eagle. AMR leased them to Trans States. The only RJP's left will be those w/ the cheapest contracts. If DAL goes into BK, you can bet they'll 1113 CMR/ASA to or below Trans States/Mesa.

There are many differences, however the most glaring is the fact that CHQ is offering to fly the same aircraft for cheaper. We never underbid you in an aircraft class you already flew. Granted, some of the RJ's success is due to the lower pay rates, but Comair is the least guilty of low RJ rates. Regardless, you had a right to fight for your jobs and you tried with scope. Now we will be fighting for our jobs.

 

[drag]

Just another shade of blue. AA flew 78 passenger F100's. The ones based at LUV had 50 seats. TWA and NWA flew/fly DC9-10s. 70-80 seat configuration. USAIR had F28's. Above 50 seats has been flown at mainline carriers for over 30 years. Many RJ pilots now feel entitled to 70-100 seat flying. Ejets and 70-90 seat RJs. I've seen them in PHX. All of this while 1000's on furlough. Through in the RJDC and it's no wonder that many mainline pilots will smirk while watching the unevitable undercutting and outsourcing that's about to happen at the RJP's. I'm not trying to sound nasty, but just offering a common perspective. What goes around, comes around.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

I don't know how "many" actually think they are "entitled" to 70 to 100 seat airplanes. More than likely not many. Delta gives out the airplanes. The contract says no more than the allowed 57. I have not heard any DCI pilot say they are "entitled" to any 100 seat airplanes if and when they appear at Delta.

 

[bvt1151]

Just another shade of blue. AA flew 78 passenger F100's. The ones based at LUV had 50 seats. TWA and NWA flew/fly DC9-10s. 70-80 seat configuration. USAIR had F28's. Above 50 seats has been flown at mainline carriers for over 30 years. Many RJ pilots now feel entitled to 70-100 seat flying. Ejets and 70-90 seat RJs. I've seen them in PHX. All of this while 1000's on furlough. Through in the RJDC and it's no wonder that many mainline pilots will smirk while watching the unevitable undercutting and outsourcing that's about to happen at the RJP's. I'm not trying to sound nasty, but just offering a common perspective. What goes around, comes around.

I understand your point, however you as a pilot group chose not to fly 50-70 seat jets. Thought it would bring down the pay grade or something. Major airline pilots never attempted to fly 50-seat aircraft, so we did what you were unwilling to do. Comair has chosen to fly 50-seat aircraft. CHQ has chosen to fly the same class of aircraft with the only difference being lower pay.

 

[FDJ2]

I understand your point, however you as a pilot group chose not to fly 50-70 seat jets.

That's not necessarily true. The mainline pilots don't have scope requiring the use of mainline pilots in DCI 50-70 seat aircraft, but you don't have scope requiring the use of CMR pilots for DCI flying either. Does that mean you don't want to fly 50-70 seat jets at DCI, or you just haven't been able to secure that flying through scope? The DALPA opener in C2K specified all RJ70s would be flown by DAL pilots. We failed to achieve that goal, but that doesn't mean we didn't want it. The end result was that DAL could, at it's option, choose to use other than DAL pilots for that flying. The fact that zero DAL pilots fly CRJ50/70s just shows that when DAL can outsource the flying to cheaper labor they most certainly will, 100% of the time. Which now puts CMR pilots in a predicament. When CMR pilots were the cheapest option they saw a windfall growth of 85% since their acquisition. Now that CMR is no longer the flavor of the day on the fourth floor that growth will come to a very sudden stop. That's not really a problem for the senior CMR pilots who now have their captain seat and a liveable wage, but for the junior CMR pilots it will be many years before they see the left seat and start making a liveable wage.

 

[drag]

Mainline pilots were never given the option/choice to fly RJ's. These airplanes were financed by DAL through Leadership 7.5 and given to CMR in '93-94. If successful, these "rj's" would replace turbo-prop routes and draw more traffic to the hub and grow mainline. That's was the sales pitch. As one can now see, this has backfired. Now DAL is saddled w/ 20 billion in debt and has a fleet of the highest CASM aircraft in the industry.

 

[FDJ2]

Now DAL is saddled w/ 20 billion in debt and has a fleet of the highest CASM aircraft in the industry.

You might add, the worlds largest fleet of RJ aircraft.

However, things might start changing here at DAL. The Executive team that brought us the world's largest RJ fleet has pretty much taken their golden parachutes and left town. We'll see if GG has the same love affair with the RJ that Leo, Fred and Mike did.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't know how "many" actually think they are "entitled" to 70 to 100 seat airplanes. More than likely not many.

Not so fast.... Contract 96 scope was what I hired in under and I never had a opportunity to participate in, or ratify, with my employer the C2K language that rolled our seat limits from 120 to 50 seats (with the 57 grandfathered 70 seat aircraft). The RJDC got the lawsuit filed in time to protect the C96 scope language.

If contract 2000 does not kill Delta first, there is a probability under law that the Court will find that ASA pilots were denied their rights of representation when ALPA arbitrarily rolled the scope limit from 120 seats to 50 seats ( with the grandfathered 57 CRJ700's ).

Contract 2000 was a smash and grab. The Court will restore equity. But again, ot probably does not matter - who the heck would lend Delta money to buy $24,000,000.00 airplanes.

~~~^~~~

 

[~~~^~~~]

That's not necessarily true. .

Oh yes it is....

Look up Duane Woerth's comments to Aviation International News while C2K was being negotiated.

 

[surplus1]

These airplanes were financed by DAL through Leadership 7.5 and given to CMR in '93-94.

We are all entitled to our own imaginations but I think yours is among the most vivid I've seen. I have to ask ... where did you get the idea that DAL financed or gave CMR any airplanes in '93-'94?

Now DAL is saddled w/ 20 billion in debt and has a fleet of the highest CASM aircraft in the industry.

It seems you are inferring that DAL's 20 billion in debt all comes from RJ's. Is that accurate or is your imagination in flood state again?

 

[General Lee]

Here is a serious question. How much of the debt is due to RJs? I really don't know. We bought $700 million this year alone I believe. And now Grinstein says he doesn't like them for flights over 2 hours. He obviously wasn't the one who decided to buy them. The guy who really liked them---the VP of planning---Mike Bell--I believe is retiring. What does all of that mean? A very interesting plan.....?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[drag]

Surplus1, yes my imagination is quite vivid. Did you know that Surplus is the term used at UAL for RIF's?

Anyway, I imagine CMR as a small CVG based commuter w/ a few Bandirantes and Metroliners connecting CVG-CMH-CLE-DAY-CVG. This imaginary company is owned by a fake dude named Dave Mueller. This fat spoiled drunk-a$$ inherited the company from his hard working father. Luckly, an airline named Delta decided to build CVG into a major hub. This entailed a rather large construction project. First, build a new terminal. Second, drill an underground train. Third, build a B concourse w/ international customs to support the new PanAm acquisition. Fourth, succeed ORD operations to AMR/UAL and move to CVG. "OH NO OHARE!!! Fly CVG!"....remember...? Lastly, turn a podunk commuter called Comair into a feeder to support this fake vision. Given the fact that Gulf War 1 and PanAm has put the company near bankruptcy, the "Delta Family" must fund these projects via "Leadership 7.5."

As I continue in my REM state, I now envison that CMR needs to show a little sign of professionalism. Instead of bussing passengers out to a noisy and windy ramp, DAL should connect these people into a nice terminal. For argument sake, let's just call it Concourse C. This building will be wired w/ the Deltamatic reservation system. In since CVG doesn't offer the O/D traffic required of a true hub like we surrenderd in ORD, perhaps a longer range commuter jet that some Canadian company is building could work. Let's float some more bonds, extend 18R, build Concourse C and fund CMR some FPDs (fee per departure) money to help finance these RJs. Our pilots will sign on because RJs will "feed the hub" and grow mainline. Now we can draw feed from ORD and really expand. Oh yeah, I'm in dream world again.

Lastly, as far as my flooded state of mind goes the 20 billion doesn't just come from CMR. It comes from many things. One of the biggest is buying a fleet of the highest CASM aircraft in the industry....CMR and ASA. Overpaying for PanAm w/o LHR access is another. Two paint jobs, new F/A uniforms, cheap wings and Cracker Jack hat badges don't help. Now DAL is saddled w/ huge debt, high CASM RJ's, no LHR, tiny Orient exposure, and weak hubs like CVG and SLC. Hard to believe DAL even had an operation in LAX. Better give that to UAL/AMR too. Back on topic, these "super efficient RJ's" can't even compete in DFW....huge O/D and connections. As you say, I may have a vivid imagination but if you're at CMR/ASA my crazy mind says get ready for pay/beny cuts or maybe even spun-off. Whoa, I'm waking up and need a beer.

 

[surplus1]

Perhaps you didn't read my post thouroughly, Surplus. I said no concessions. I also described the reaction when a pilot mentions the possibilities. That you have demonstrated nicely.

Perhaps you didn't read my post thoroughly either and I am certain that you are misinterpreting my "reaction". I did not suggest that we should fall on our swords and be stupid. I agree that the situation is serious and I also agree that we need to be creative. However, I don't think there is any creativity in simply attempting to "match CHQ". If we do that, they will undercut us again and there are others that already undercut them.

You carefully avoided my question. Do you want our FO's to fly for minimum wage and our captains for $15 per hour? Eventually that will happen if we attempt to retain flying or gain flying by underbidding others. There is a point beyond which it is not worth going. Sooner or later we will have to decide what that point is.

As a pilot you know that when the wx is below minimums you will not increase your life span by continuing to make more missed approaches to the same airport. You also know that it makes no sense at all to "divert" to an airport that is also below minimums. If there is no secondary alternate in the release, we still have to find one at which we can not only make an approach, but complete a successful landing. I am suggesting that simply agreeing to pay cuts is not an acceptable option. I'm open to any suggestion you care to make.

The current scenario may not be an emergency as yet but it does require serious planning before it becomes one. That will not be acheived by going into panic mode and squabbling with each other. I understand your concerns. Do not think for one minute that I am willing to ingnore the problems because I'm senior and you're junior; that is not the case. When you take that approach (which it seem you are) you risk dividing us among ourselves. That will not benefit any of us whether junior or senior.

We've already drawn the line and said no. The problem is, while we were busy drawing the line and saying we won't fly airplanes for that amount of money, CHQ jumped in and said "we'll do it!" ALPA has already shown their inability to unionize their own union, and CHQ isn't even ALPA. Don't see your suggestion happening, ever. So lets return to reality and offer some realistic suggestions.

My "suggestion" was nothing more than facetious rhetoric and I'm well aware that it can't happen. I thought I couched it in a way that you could easily understand but it seems I was wrong. For that I apologize. As for ALPA, well for this type of problem it's as useless as tits on a bore hog. In fact ALPA is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Comair pilots must solve the problems of Comair pilots, there is no one else to do it for us and I know that. Our "union" is right here among ourselves, not in Washington. Hopefully, you understand that too and further, that we can't accomplish anything by working against each other.

After our reps simply walk out on managment during the inevitable request, I will be furloughed long before you. Can't happen you say? Just because Comair has been lucky in the past, don't let that lull you into the false belief that we'll come out on the other end smelling like roses. There have already been rumors about the 70's being consolidated at ASA. Whether or not that is true is meaningless. What is important is that all they have to do is tell us the month before the bid packet is issued that we will no longer be flying those aircraft. Then what? We lose over 250 pilots overnight. But at least we told them to pound dirt, right? We stood tall!

Oh, and on a side note: we took 13% casualties.

I never said it "can't happen" and I assure you I'm not lulled into any false beliefs about anything. I understand fully the levels of protection that we have as well as what we do not have. I also know that our "friends" are all Comair pilots, period. Hopefully you understand that last point as well. I'm nor looking at anything through rose colored lenses but I also don't believe we've run out of options.

Our future is no longer in our hands. It depends on other pilot groups raising their salaries and they just aren't doing it. We can't just stand around saying "look what we did for 89 days," while the likes of CHQ say "Hey, great. Nice planes, yoink!" Frankly, what happened three years ago is in the past, and its time to face the facts; the very people Comair stuck their necks out for in '01 are the same people ready to drop the gauntlet.

I'm well aware that what happened three years ago is history and I'm not basing any of my thinking on our little strike. If that's what you think, you just don't understand anything I've ever written. I say again, our "friends" are all Comair pilots. However, I'm not willing to blame everything on CHQ either. They may be a part of the problem but they are not THE problem and they are quite likely to have problems of their own before too long. Perhaps you'll admit that it is better to be dealing with one bankrupt airline than to be dependent on two bankrupt airlines and two nearly bankrupt airlines. I recommend that you not waste so much time worrying about CHQ and spend your good offices helping to solve our own problems here at home.

I do not agree that our future is no longer in our hands. That speaks to a feeling of helplessness and despair. I don't give up that easily. There are solutions to our problems and working together we will find them. We don't need to create a crisis in our thinking. What we need to do is engage in serious planning and consideration of all viable solutions, selection of alternative options available and then cross each bridge when we get to it. It is a time for planning and objectivity, but it is not a time for despair or panic.

Do you really believe Comair couldn't shrink? Randy didn't blatantly come out and say he will be asking for concessions for the he11 of it. There doesn't seem to be any major growth heading to DCI, especially with the inevitible demise of USAir and all the RJ's with pilots that will immediately become available. This means Randy is hinting towards concessions to retain our own aircraft. In fact he said that very thing on Wednesday. Are you willing to snub alternatives to concessions even when pilots are being furloughed? And yes, there are alternatives. First step in finding them, is to swallow our pride. Lets work on that one first.

No my friend, I am well aware than any airline can shrink. I've been in this business far too long to be dealing with illusions of grandeur. I'm not snubbing any alternatives for you haven't offered any. If and when you do I will consider each one and make my own decision as to its viability. That's all that I want you to do as well. I don't want any of our pilots to be furloughed and will do everything I can to prevent that, short of selling my soul.

From my perspective, this has nothing to do with pride. We will not find adequate solutions to the problems in an atmosphere filled with emotions and it doesn't matter wheter you call those emotions pride or I call them fear. Yes, I heard what Randy said. He did not reveal anything that I would consider unusual given that I think I understand how management operates. This isn't the first time I've dealt with Randy or his predecessors. He reminds me of a bandleader and I've already heard all the tunes he plays. Some are better than others but there's not a great deal that's original. Mostly just a remix

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

The RJ labor market has turned on us. There is way too much capacity (pilots) and when Airways goes under that will drastically get worse. Delta would not have much trouble replacing our entire airline with ex-USAir pilots and aircraft. We cannot afford to pound our chest like we could before September 11, 2001. There are too many people willing to slide in behind us and take what we have.

My read isn't quite the same as yours. Under normal circumstance USAir going under would be very advantageous to DAL but the situation is admittedly a little different now. Nevertheless, don't overlook that Delta owns Comair. It is not always advantageous to replace something you already own with something that you have to buy. It's a lot easier to eliminate a subcontractor than it is to sell a subsidiary, especially if you've forced it into an inefficient mess.

I've never been one to do any chest pounding. I wasn't doing that before 9/11 and I'm not doing it now. In my opinion we did not achieve any miracles in our contract or our strike that ever warranted chest pounding. Yes, our unity was impressive and I'm proud of that but otherwise I'm in no rush to declare victory. The one think that we really needed we did not achieve, i.e., job security. You're barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me of that.

I don't agree that the RJ labor market has turned on us. There has always been a surplus of pilots. Granted, it is bigger now with all the furloughs but that won't increase substantially from Airways pilots if USAir fails. The furloughed pilots that affect us are already in the market. Those that are left at U have an average age of 53 and will not be rushing to take regional jobs that can't pay their bills. The USAir Express carriers are a different story. There will be a bunch of those now hanging on USAir that may be unemployed if U tanks, but it is still not an overnight replacement scenario. Most of them fly the Embraer product and CHQ will have plenty surplus if Delta wants it. I think you may be overlooking many parts of the overall equation. I'll grant you there will be increased pressure on us but All is not lost and the sky is not falling yet.

So what do we do? How about establish some quality directives coming out of the union representation? How about some research into revenue-boosting operations? Lets make it too costly for DCI not to use us. How about combined pay rates of larger aircraft to allow increased efficiency? How about some research into J4J in order to set limits to protect the interest of Comair pilots, and to secure future growth? With some foresight, this is very possible.

We have to find a way to be competitive, and it is the responsibility of management as well as the union.

What we DON"T do is panic. I agree completely that our union at CMR (forget ALPA they're not on our side) should be actively engaged in serious planning for the various contingencies and I hope that it is. I admit concern that it may not be doing that. I agree there should be serious research into all options and alternatives (excepting further pursuit of a merger that isn't going to happen, which I always thought was an ill-advised use of energy). I don't like your combined pay rate option because I see it as taking from one group of our own to give to another group of our own (not much different than allowing a junior to be furloughed to protect a senior). J4J would require a lot of guarantees from the Company to make it worth while. Without those it benefits the pilots of another airline at our expense. However, I'm not against exploring those guarantees.

"Future growth" I have some problems with. There seems to be an inordinate expectation that we have to grow at double digit rates so that we can satisfy the ambitions of our more recent members. That's nice, but I see it as somehat unrealistic. Too much "future growth" is one of the things that has our industry in its current position. Capacity has been increased so rapidly that it continues to exceed demand, even with all the cutbacks that have taken place at the majors. Personally I would rather focus on keeping what we have and avoiding a shrink than worrying about rapid upgrades. I guess that's a difference that will always exist between the old and the new. I'm not against growth, but I'm not willing to "buy" it either. Modest growth can be achieved without doing that. Some stagnation is not at all unusual in this business. Just as you want me to get over my pride, I want you to get over the idea that we can grow at double digit rates indefinitely. That just isn't going to happen. The boom and bust cycles of the airline industry are directly related to the rapid growth mentality of the managers seeking quick profits with no long range planning. That is the primary reason why we are where we are today. Growth is not always a good thing. We all need food, but when we eat too much we just get fat, which does not lead to good health.

Anyway, I don't want to argue with you. We agree on many things and I would rather focus on our agreements than our differences.

Best regards.

 

[surplus1]

Wow, that's really good, much better than I expected. Thanks a lot for the education. Now I know for sure that if bad things ever happen to Delta you can always get an anchor position at Fox News. Even Hannity can't spin like that.

Surplus1, yes my imagination is quite vivid. Did you know that Surplus is the term used at UAL for RIF's?

No, I didn't know that. To me RIF was just an old Air Force term. See, you learn something every day.

Anyway, I imagine CMR as a small CVG based commuter w/ a few Bandirantes and Metroliners connecting CVG-CMH-CLE-DAY-CVG. This imaginary company is owned by a fake dude named Dave Mueller. This fat spoiled drunk-a$$ inherited the company from his hard working father. Luckly, an airline named Delta decided to build CVG into a major hub. This entailed a rather large construction project. First, build a new terminal. Second, drill an underground train. Third, build a B concourse w/ international customs to support the new PanAm acquisition. Fourth, succeed ORD operations to AMR/UAL and move to CVG. "OH NO OHARE!!! Fly CVG!"....remember...? Lastly, turn a podunk commuter called Comair into a feeder to support this fake vision. Given the fact that Gulf War 1 and PanAm has put the company near bankruptcy, the "Delta Family" must fund these projects via "Leadership 7.5."

Thanks again. I did know that CMR was a small CVG based commuter w/ (you forgot the Navajos) Bandierantes and Metros and I did know who started it. I did know that Delta built a tunnel and Concourse B, but I didn't know that Delta built the whole cotton picking terminal. That's marvelous. I also didn't know that all of that was built with Delta money. I was under the illusion that the local government had some involvement and some money in the deal. Now that I've learned you built it all with Delta money, that's impressive. The people of Kentucky and Ohio are really indebted to you all. I was told that the commuter signed a code share agreement with Delta in 1984, which I thought was before you built all that stuff and I also thought that the Gulf 1 war was in 1991 and then I thought your "Leadership 7.5" was a Ron Allen deal that came somewhere around '95, but I guess that's all a mistake on my part.

As I continue in my REM state, I now envison that CMR needs to show a little sign of professionalism. Instead of bussing passengers out to a noisy and windy ramp, DAL should connect these people into a nice terminal. For argument sake, let's just call it Concourse C. This building will be wired w/ the Deltamatic reservation system. In since CVG doesn't offer the O/D traffic required of a true hub like we surrenderd in ORD, perhaps a longer range commuter jet that some Canadian company is building could work. Let's float some more bonds, extend 18R, build Concourse C and fund CMR some FPDs (fee per departure) money to help finance these RJs. Our pilots will sign on because RJs will "feed the hub" and grow mainline. Now we can draw feed from ORD and really expand. Oh yeah, I'm in dream world again.

Gee, Delta built the 18R extension too? Where did I ever get the idea that runways were built with a combination of city, state and mostly federal funds? Then I also thought that it was Comair that floated the bonds to build Concourse C, but I guess they lied about that too. Then I remember those monies paid to Delta for use of the Deltamatic system that CMR kept putting in its annual reports, but now with your information I realize that was all fake. I also thought that Comair's contract with Delta was a revenue sharing agreement and not a "FPD" until quite after Delta bought CMR in 2000, but I guess I screwed up there too. Finally, I thought CMR decided to buy jets over Delta's objections and paid for them with its own money and financing, but now that you've set me straight the whole thing is clear to me. Thanks a lot man, I think it was wonderful of Delta's BOD to allow Ron Allen to give Comair all that money for nothing. I know you didn't mention it, but are you sure that DAL didn't borrow the money from DALPA? Anyway, I really want to thank you for the generosity and especially for buying Comair for nearly 2 billion dollars after first giving us all that cool stuff. You guys are just all heart man. We owe you so much (and you must have forgotten half the stuff you gave us) that's why nearly all 4500 of us Comair people lined up to kiss your butts on the day you decided to pay our shareholders again for all that stuff you had already given us for nothing. You really brought tears to my eyes man.

Lastly, as far as my flooded state of mind goes the 20 billion doesn't just come from CMR. It comes from many things. One of the biggest is buying a fleet of the highest CASM aircraft in the industry....CMR and ASA. Overpaying for PanAm w/o LHR access is another. Two paint jobs, new F/A uniforms, cheap wings and Cracker Jack hat badges don't help. Now DAL is saddled w/ huge debt, high CASM RJ's, no LHR, tiny Orient exposure, and weak hubs like CVG and SLC. Hard to believe DAL even had an operation in LAX. Better give that to UAL/AMR too. Back on topic, these "super efficient RJ's" can't even compete in DFW....huge O/D and connections. As you say, I may have a vivid imagination but if you're at CMR/ASA my crazy mind says get ready for pay/beny cuts or maybe even spun-off. Whoa, I'm waking up and need a beer.

Now I feel let down. I was sure you'd say that CMR was responsible for the whole 20 billion. Anyway I do want to thank you for takeing all those expensive jets off of Comair's hands and paying for them. We were really on the brink of bankruptcy and if Delta hadn't saved the day by buying us we'd all be on the street. Thanks again.

Sorry you paid too much for PanAm (you did), and I'm sorry you couldn't decide which paint job you wanted and had to try so many times, and those F/A uniforms are almost as tacky as the double-breasted suits you guys wear. I also agree that the new "brass" comes from a Cracker Jacks box and wish you hadn't forced us to wear a version of the same junk.

I'm sorry to that you're bitter about your management's repeated failures and maybe you'll get dalpa to take over the company and run it right 'cause those executives obviously don't have a clue. Say, do you really think you could get that mind of yours to convince them to spin us off?

BTW, we're getting ready for the pay cuts and my one hope is that they won't be as large as yours. It will be nice to see you driving chevys and shopping with us at WalMart though; we've missed you for too long.

One last thing. When you wake better have a couple shots of good whiskey or maybe a nice glass of champagne while you can still afford it. That beer stuff is for us regional pukes, but it is coming you're way.

Thanks again for all the right information. Now that you all have owned us for awhile we really should start adopting to the mythology. Keep the lines to Miss Cleo open.

 

[bvt1151]

Perhaps you didn't read my post thoroughly either and I am certain that you are misinterpreting my "reaction". I did not suggest that we should fall on our swords and be stupid. I agree that the situation is serious and I also agree that we need to be creative. However, I don't think there is any creativity in simply attempting to "match CHQ". If we do that, they will undercut us again and there are others that already undercut them.

Careful... I've never suggested matching CHQ. In fact that would be a very bad scenario.

You carefully avoided my question. Do you want our FO's to fly for minimum wage and our captains for $15 per hour? Eventually that will happen if we attempt to retain flying or gain flying by underbidding others. There is a point beyond which it is not worth going. Sooner or later we will have to decide what that point is.

Really it wasn't a careful avoidance. I honestly thought you were being rehtorical, but I have to say now that you've explained your sincerity, I'm a little insulted. Please read my last response about my take on concessions. In fact, please read every one of my posts about my take on concessions. That should answer your questions. If you still think that's carefully avoiding the question, perhaps a bold, italicized response will clear things up:

NO!

I am suggesting that simply agreeing to pay cuts is not an acceptable option.

See above response.

I'm open to any suggestion you care to make.

You quoted them in your post.

The current scenario may not be an emergency as yet but it does require serious planning before it becomes one. That will not be acheived by going into panic mode and squabbling with each other. I understand your concerns. Do not think for one minute that I am willing to ingnore the problems because I'm senior and you're junior; that is not the case. When you take that approach (which it seem you are) you risk dividing us among ourselves. That will not benefit any of us whether junior or senior.

How quickly it becomes a Jr./Sr. issue. I think you'll find, if you take a breath and a step back, that we're agreeing here.

My "suggestion" was nothing more than facetious rhetoric and I'm well aware that it can't happen. I thought I couched it in a way that you could easily understand but it seems I was wrong. For that I apologize.

Consider it even for your last question that apparently was not rhetorical.

As for ALPA, well for this type of problem it's as useless as tits on a bore hog. In fact ALPA is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Comair pilots must solve the problems of Comair pilots, there is no one else to do it for us and I know that. Our "union" is right here among ourselves, not in Washington. Hopefully, you understand that too and further, that we can't accomplish anything by working against each other.

Once again, we agree here. Don't confuse my statement of the problem with panic. In fact its far from it.

I never said it "can't happen" and I assure you I'm not lulled into any false beliefs about anything. I understand fully the levels of protection that we have as well as what we do not have. I also know that our "friends" are all Comair pilots, period.

Well said.

Hopefully you understand that last point as well. I'm nor looking at anything through rose colored lenses but I also don't believe we've run out of options.

I think you'll agree that my posts have called for using the options available to us, and not an even remote hint at us running out of options. Is it possible? Sure. Has it happened? Not yet. My issue is that after several options have been presented, they have quickly been turned down. The policy isn't "no concessions," the policy seems to be "nothing that helps management, regardless of whether or not we'd benefit."

I'm well aware that what happened three years ago is history and I'm not basing any of my thinking on our little strike. If that's what you think, you just don't understand anything I've ever written.

Actually as I got further into the post, I lost track of my initial response to you, and gradually started speaking to many Captain's who have said such things. I apologize for that, and you are correct when you say you haven't written that.

I say again, our "friends" are all Comair pilots. However, I'm not willing to blame everything on CHQ either. They may be a part of the problem but they are not THE problem and they are quite likely to have problems of their own before too long. Perhaps you'll admit that it is better to be dealing with one bankrupt airline than to be dependent on two bankrupt airlines and two nearly bankrupt airlines. I recommend that you not waste so much time worrying about CHQ and spend your good offices helping to solve our own problems here at home.

CHQ is a part of the problem. When persuading readers, the first step is to state the problem. This is what you're confusing with worrying about CHQ. You'll find suggestions to fix the problem at the bottom of my post. Notice how not one of them even mentions CHQ? This is because I am calling for Comair pilots to help Comair pilots, instead of hiding their heads in the sand. I don't wish ill-will upon the CHQ pilots, but I do wish prosperity for the Comair pilots. If one means the other, then its important to understand that decisions need to be made for the Comair pilots, regardless of the effect on the CHQ pilots.

I do not agree that our future is no longer in our hands. That speaks to a feeling of helplessness and despair. I don't give up that easily. There are solutions to our problems and working together we will find them.

You're echoing my post. Once again, you'll find the suggestions at the bottom.

We don't need to create a crisis in our thinking. What we need to do is engage in serious planning and consideration of all viable solutions, selection of alternative options available and then cross each bridge when we get to it. It is a time for planning and objectivity, but it is not a time for despair or panic.

You've apparently formed a false impression of me. I've spent quite a bit of time preaching objectivity and rational decisions. Never have I said the situation is inevitible.

I'm not snubbing any alternatives for you haven't offered any. If and when you do I will consider each one and make my own decision as to its viability.

You quoted my suggestions in your own post. I'm not interested in going into the specifics on this board for obvious reasons, but I can assure you, they are there.

That's all that I want you to do as well. I don't want any of our pilots to be furloughed and will do everything I can to prevent that, short of selling my soul.

everything short of selling your soul?.. including concessions? Yes this is rhetorical, but I want you to understand how frustrating it is to be accused of calling for concessions at every suggestion for exploring more options outside of concessions. touche?

From my perspective, this has nothing to do with pride.

We will not find adequate solutions to the problems in an atmosphere filled with emotions and it doesn't matter wheter you call those emotions pride or I call them fear.

The solution should not have anything to do with emotion, however the current problem seems to be too much pride. This cannot get in the way of whats best for Comair pilots. Don't confuse concern with fear. I'm a far-cry away from that. Its easy when you're content with the current situation to consider those who are not wracked (sp?) with fear. I am not content with the current situation.

Yes, I heard what Randy said. He did not reveal anything that I would consider unusual given that I think I understand how management operates. This isn't the first time I've dealt with Randy or his predecessors. He reminds me of a bandleader and I've already heard all the tunes he plays. Some are better than others but there's not a great deal that's original. Mostly just a remix

Has it not occurred to anyone else, that Randy and Oz may be one of our greatest allies in this situation? Past issues aside, we all would benefit from increased efficiency and growth. Don't confuse efficiency with concessions. We can't discount options that would benefit us just because they would benefit managment as well. There is some obvious strife between Oz/Randy and Fred B, and I think this is to our advantage. Randy even let some of that discontent show during the meeting. This can mean nothing but good news and opportunity for us, that is if we're willing to capitalize.

Nevertheless, don't overlook that Delta owns Comair. It is not always advantageous to replace something you already own with something that you have to buy.

While you are correct, this gives no reason for maintaining status quo. There are many pilots who are saying "Comair has always been profitable. Delta wouldn't do anything to hurt their most profitable asset." Unfortunately they are wrong. If Fred had the chance to fly the same aircraft for a penny more profit at another airline, I think he'd jump on it. Don't believe the gobbly-gook about how Fred really has a soft spot in his heart for Comair.

 

[bvt1151]

I've never been one to do any chest pounding. I wasn't doing that before 9/11 and I'm not doing it now. In my opinion we did not achieve any miracles in our contract or our strike that ever warranted chest pounding. Yes, our unity was impressive and I'm proud of that but otherwise I'm in no rush to declare victory. The one think that we really needed we did not achieve, i.e., job security. You're barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me of that.

You're right. Once again that wasn't addressed to you as much as it was to the countless others. Its my fault in not clarifying...but you have to agree its alarming how many pilots do feel that way.

I don't agree that the RJ labor market has turned on us. There has always been a surplus <--shameless plug! of pilots...
..What we DON"T do is panic. I agree completely that our union at CMR (forget ALPA they're not on our side) should be actively engaged in serious planning for the various contingencies and I hope that it is. I admit concern that it may not be doing that.

Great! We've agreed that we show the exact same concern (and not fear). You just happen to be infinitely more articulate than I and can express that in one sentence, while I stumble through a whole post.

I agree there should be serious research into all options and alternatives (excepting further pursuit of a merger that isn't going to happen, which I always thought was an ill-advised use of energy).

Amen to that.

I don't like your combined pay rate option because I see it as taking from one group of our own to give to another group of our own (not much different than allowing a junior to be furloughed to protect a senior).

There are highbrid situations where separate pay scales are used, yet pilots are rated on several variants. Kinda like how the 90-seaters were rumoured to be implemented had they arrived. Definitely worth exploring.

J4J would require a lot of guarantees from the Company to make it worth while. Without those it benefits the pilots of another airline at our expense. However, I'm not against exploring those guarantees.

It is encouraging to read this. I'm not a proponent of current J4J agreements, but that does not say there is no situation in which J4J would be beneficial to Comair. We need to find those situations and make decisions based upon their possible outcomes and the probability of success for us.

"Future growth" I have some problems with. There seems to be an inordinate expectation that we have to grow at double digit rates so that we can satisfy the ambitions of our more recent members. That's nice, but I see it as somehat unrealistic. Too much "future growth" is one of the things that has our industry in its current position...

I can understand how you got this impression, but I totally agree with you here. You're preaching to the choir.

 

[FDJ2]

Oh yes it is....

Look up Duane Woerth's comments to Aviation International News while C2K was being negotiated.

Duane is not a DAL pilot, but perhaps you could post his comments regardless. It might be interesting.

 

[FDJ2]

Not so fast.... Contract 96 scope was what I hired in under and I never had a opportunity to participate in, or ratify, with my employer the C2K language that rolled our seat limits from 120 to 50 seats (with the 57 grandfathered 70 seat aircraft).

Contract 96 specifically allowed 20 BAE 146s, not 120 seats in general. Would you feel whole if you got the right to fly those 20 BAE 146s back again?