Comair Concessions?

[surplus1]

Let's not intentionally try to scare the kids Gen.

Coming from a member of the world's largest commuter airline, that's kinda cute.

The General means well but, like his fellows, he often suffers from illusions. The rhetoric is intereting, but hardly scary.

As you analyze, keep in mind that this isn't USAG and CMR isn't one of the "WO's" with which you may be familiar. We're not used to dancing to drumbeats from the DMEC. Their war paint and feathers aren't frightening, they're just colorful.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Not when you're dealing with another pilot group who is working for a seperate, quasi-independant company, who also happens to be represented by the same national union and who is entitled to the same representation as the pilots at the parent company.

Now that's more like it. I think you may be getting the message. It's more like foamy shaving cream than tootpaste. Once it's out of the package it just expands, expands, expands.

If you live in an ivory tower, the expading foam is the really scary part, not the hot air from Atlanta.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,

You know my friend that I want all of us to succeed. My main goal so far has been to help my friends that are still a part of the 1060 furloughs still on the street. I want our airline group to expand and get profitable again, just like you do I believe. I also want to have a mainline after this is all over with, and the only way, in my view and most of the Dalpa memebers views I THINK, is to protect what we have. Would I like you to get more 70 seaters? Sure. But, I would also like to expand INTL flying and maybe get some more 777s---but that isn't up to me. In the mean time, we have to hold on to what we have (percentage wise too). Better times are around the corner hopefully, and then you and I will hopefully see expansion again. We both can agree to disagree with the correct way to achieve it---but overall we both want our airline group to succeed.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

You know my friend that I want all of us to succeed. My main goal so far has been to help my friends that are still a part of the 1060 furloughs still on the street. I want our airline group to expand and get profitable again, just like you do I believe. I also want to have a mainline after this is all over with, and the only way, in my view and most of the Dalpa memebers views I THINK, is to protect what we have. Would I like you to get more 70 seaters? Sure. But, I would also like to expand INTL flying and maybe get some more 777s---but that isn't up to me. In the mean time, we have to hold on to what we have (percentage wise too). Better times are around the corner hopefully, and then you and I will hopefully see expansion again. We both can agree to disagree with the correct way to achieve it---but overall we both want our airline group to succeed.

Bye Bye--General Lee

General,

I really have no problem with any of that. I want you to get your furloughees back. I want the mainline to expand and I believe that it will when the economy warrants that expansion. I'd like to see you get as many triple sevens, 76's, 75's, DC9's and 737's (of all sizes) as the revenue pax will support by filling them up.

If and when you grow that will not hurt the subsidiary that employs me. On the contrary, the bigger you get the bigger we will get. It is really all just one company.

Where we differ is pretty basic. I don't want to tell the company how many 737's it should have or where they should fly. I do not want to displace you from your seat and do the flying that is traditionally yours. If you get bigger, I am happy for you. If you get smaller I am sad for you. However, those things are and should be, in my opinion, controlled by realistic market forces, not by artifical constraints of your PWA.

Your group wants to keep what you have. That's fine. However, you also want to get what we have. You want to limit our growth. You want to restrict the aircraft we fly (which you do NOT fly and never have). You want to control every aspect of everything that we do, based on the mistaken notion that somehow it hurts you. It does NOT hurt you. It provides millions of passengers to fill the larger equipment that is yours exclusively. Without it, you would have fewer of every type that I listed.

Whenever the market requires an aircraft that is larger that what we fly, the 737s and the MD80's will replace the 70-seaters that now operate in those markets. That is how it should be and I see no problem with that.

We do not complain when a 737 replaces a CRJ7. You should not complain when a CRJ7 replaces a 737. We do not dictate that, the market does. You should not be trying to dictate how many CRJ7's the company needs or buys or deploys. That should be a management decision. Your PWA creates unnecessary and detrimental artificial restraints on the Company, which is not it the company's best interest, not in your best interest and not in my best interest.

The restrictions you want to maintain are not based on market needs or business needs. They are based on greed. They are artificial. They are bad for ALL of us and they need to be eliminated.

There is a fence between us. YOU put it there. That's fine, but you can't keep relocating the fence every time you want to expand your backyard and that is exactly what you are trying to do. Each time you relocate the fence, you take from my backyard. If I allow you to continue, pretty soon your fence will be in the middle of my swimming pool. I can't let that happen.

We want to grow just like you do. However, we are willing to grow in our own backyard. We are not trying to move the fence into your backyard and we never have. YOU are the "fence movers", not us.

Your uninlateral relocation of the fence in C2K has caused the conflict between us. We didn't do it, YOU did. Put the fence back on the boundary of your property, where it was, and the conflict will go away. Until you do that, our object will continue to be the removal of your new fence. We want if off of our property and back on the property line.

We differ because YOU believe that ALL the land is yours, including the part that is our home and has been for more than 25 years. You must understand that we cannot allow you to evict us from our home, simply because you want to give it to "new" members of your family.

We offered to take down all the fences and share the land with you. YOU rejected that offer. That's OK, but it does NOT allow you to take what is ours, to move into our yard at will, to put your fence across the middle of our pool or to occupy our house with your siblings and force us to move out of it. To prevent you from doing that, we are fighting and will continue to fight. The fight is ugly and it will get worse, unless you put that fence back on the line that is yours.

Moving on to concessions at Comair ___ why? What is the justification? Is the operation unprofitable? Is the Company losing money because of what we do or how we do it? Are we inefficient to the point that necessitates a change?

I think that there is in fact NO JUSTIFICATION that can be substantiated. The problem is not in our operations, it is in your operations. Our compensation is not exorbitant and does not produce losses for the company. Concessions that we could give will NOT restore the company's profitability.

Should we give these concessions because of YOUR inefficiencies? Should we attempt to help YOU to make up for what you can't or won't do while at the same time accepting restrictions that you impose aribitrarily and without which we could do even better than we already do? I don't think so.

Your side of the fence has a problem and your group contributes to that problem, therefore your group should contribute to the solution of YOUR problem. Should you give up the farm? Of course not! The company's requests should not be unreasonable, but your response to them should not be unreasonable either. Given the condition of your side of the fence, you need to be a part of the solution. JMO.

My side of the fence is doing well. We are not a part of the problem and therefore concessions on our part will not really make us a part of the solution. They will simply help to solve YOUR problems, at our expense.

Would we like to help you solve YOUR problems? Yes we would. However, we can't do that as long as you continue a policy that makes the problem bigger at our expense.

This really isn't rocket science. WE need to do this together, but YOU guys don't want that. You can't expect us to do it for you. And NO, I'm not talking about a merger or one list. That is not practical now.

We cannot and do not want to take anything from you. You in turn must stop trying to fix your problems by taking from or restricting us. That is obviously not the answer.

The Company needs to tell you in simple terms that your artificial constraints do not work in this market and are unacceptable. They need to go, period. When that happens there will be future growth for both of us.

Your growth rate will not be as high percentage wise as ours because you are 3-5 times our size and it is not possible. Our growth rate cannot continue to be double digit indefinitely. There IS a limit to how many RJs, of any size, the Company needs now or in the future. However, that limit must be established by the market, NOT by artificial restraints in your PWA.

The growth of "DCI" will diminish and stabilize as a result of market forces. That is how it should be and that WILL eventually happen no matter what you do or what we do. Both of us have to live with that. I think we have that "big picture", but it seems that you do not.

In my opinion, the only reasonable answer to requests for concession from our side is: If and when you present data that establishes the unprofitability of this subsidiary, we will respond with appropriate considerations. Until you do, there is really not much to talk about.

We WILL listen to you and we will talk with you, but so far you (the Company) have not presented any concrete evidence (known to the pilot group) that there is a legitimate reason to open our contract at this time.

Regards

 

[Wacopilot]

Surplus1,

Don't get so emotionally involved yet, there will be time for that. Remember, we don't know why the Kremlin want's to talk...everything on this board and on the line is hearsay....Just wait and see. It could be a good thing. When you get a letter in your V-File that says "Mr. We want money back!" then lets get going. It's really not that bad.

 

[Flash 7]

Excellent post Surplus!!!!

Unfortunately their leadership is oblivious to those facts and it will take our class action lawsuit to force what is right.

 

[cr7driver]

Nice Post

Nice job Captain! I totally agree, I just wish that most mainline guys see it that way. Greed has consumed this business and will continue to do so until we (mainline & regional) pilots band together. If this pattern continues, management will play one group against another forever. There is money to be made in this industry, we just need to work together.

 

[Wacopilot]

I agree..... but shouldn't we all sit around and hold hands and sing koom-by-ya untill the S&%T hits the fan blade? Just a little FYI.....My uncle retired from Delta 3years ago...he Was a captain on the 777......he was hired with 120 hrs tt and flew a DC-3......We are all the same, mainline and regional. Only Difference is pay...... and the number of FA's.........