Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Comair stopped Hiring?Asking for Leaves
- Thread starter General Lee
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
If Comair is furloughing folks for a short time and stopping classes, then why are they still interviewing ( I interview in a few weeks). Also, how long does it take to get a class date NOW after an interview. HOG
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Col Hogan,
I think we have figured out that Comair is not actually furloughing anyone, rather they are offering short temporary leaves (like a month or two) when their orders for RJ's slow down this summer(?). It sounds like it has happened to them in the past. They probably are still hiring. If you do interview with them, make sure you ask around to the other interviewees and see if there are any furloughed Delta pilots interviewing. Then ask why or why not? They will probably blame the Delta MEC. Good luck.
Bye Bye---General Lee
I think we have figured out that Comair is not actually furloughing anyone, rather they are offering short temporary leaves (like a month or two) when their orders for RJ's slow down this summer(?). It sounds like it has happened to them in the past. They probably are still hiring. If you do interview with them, make sure you ask around to the other interviewees and see if there are any furloughed Delta pilots interviewing. Then ask why or why not? They will probably blame the Delta MEC. Good luck.
Bye Bye---General Lee
Heard from a source who just got back from Montreal that the reason for the Leave of Absence is simply a training burp..Apparently the 70 is such a good investment that we are getting more deliveries of them at a faster rate, and in turn are taking less 50 seat deliveries. This leaves us with more 50 seat people than we originally needed. We have basically hired too many 50 seat people because we thought we'd be getting more 50's. Instead we're gonna get more 70's..
Also heard that up in Montreal there are "certain" pictures of 90 seaters...with a certain tail number already painted on them..? anybody have any idea?
Also heard that up in Montreal there are "certain" pictures of 90 seaters...with a certain tail number already painted on them..? anybody have any idea?
Well know more when...
... Delta begins talks with pilots on pay cuts. You can bet the 70-seat limit, 90 seat and other scope will be on the table. The additional 70-seaters coming to Comair is just a reponse to ASA being in contract talks. 57 is the current limit, but I bet that goes away when the cuts start. As for mainline flying them, good luck.
... Delta begins talks with pilots on pay cuts. You can bet the 70-seat limit, 90 seat and other scope will be on the table. The additional 70-seaters coming to Comair is just a reponse to ASA being in contract talks. 57 is the current limit, but I bet that goes away when the cuts start. As for mainline flying them, good luck.
FlyDeltasJets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 664
Flaps,
Why in the world would we give pay cuts AND relief on scope? In fact, I sincerely hope that my MEC is of the belief that concessions should buy us something. More airplanes (regardless of the size) are just part of the package we should get in return for any sacrifice we make.
CRJ,
If there is in fact a picture of a 90-seater in Delta colors, than I am looking forward to flying it. Of course you know that any airplane over 70 seats must be flown by Delta pilots, according to our contract. I hope that you are not in favor of "taking our airplanes?" If so, than why stop at 90 seats? Should we allow DCI our 737's? Why stop there? How about our 777s?
Why in the world would we give pay cuts AND relief on scope? In fact, I sincerely hope that my MEC is of the belief that concessions should buy us something. More airplanes (regardless of the size) are just part of the package we should get in return for any sacrifice we make.
CRJ,
If there is in fact a picture of a 90-seater in Delta colors, than I am looking forward to flying it. Of course you know that any airplane over 70 seats must be flown by Delta pilots, according to our contract. I hope that you are not in favor of "taking our airplanes?" If so, than why stop at 90 seats? Should we allow DCI our 737's? Why stop there? How about our 777s?
ok
No, I have no idea who will fly what and when. All I was saying is that when you open yourselves up to pay cuts, ect. scope will again come up. I think both scope and pay will change. You may not.
Who flys what is just as important to the bottom line as pay cuts are. In the current environment mainline will have to give something, now what do you think the top 50% would rather give up ? Their pay or more 70-seaters ? I'd say it will be some combination of relaxing scope somewhat and modest pay cuts. There is talk about not giving an inch, getting the 1060 back, but in private the top 50% want to make sure their pension is still there and they keep salary just where it is. I'm not slamming anyone, just being realistic about what people say and what they actually do.
Also, I just don't see guys taking a pay cut to provide 70-seat jobs for mainline.
No, I have no idea who will fly what and when. All I was saying is that when you open yourselves up to pay cuts, ect. scope will again come up. I think both scope and pay will change. You may not.
Who flys what is just as important to the bottom line as pay cuts are. In the current environment mainline will have to give something, now what do you think the top 50% would rather give up ? Their pay or more 70-seaters ? I'd say it will be some combination of relaxing scope somewhat and modest pay cuts. There is talk about not giving an inch, getting the 1060 back, but in private the top 50% want to make sure their pension is still there and they keep salary just where it is. I'm not slamming anyone, just being realistic about what people say and what they actually do.
Also, I just don't see guys taking a pay cut to provide 70-seat jobs for mainline.
Last edited:
Reports from YUL are that a 90-seater is painted in Comair colors. Why is that? Nothing more than a marketing effort by bombardier. Comair is still their #1 customer and is the airline that was with bombardier from the very beginning. I've been told (never saw it) that there was a 50-seater painted half-comair and half-cityline back when they were initially marketing that aircraft. So a 90-seater painted in comair colors means nothing other than they're trying to sell it to Comair.
Don't forget, it only takes about 8-square feet of red, white and blue paint to make a comair airplane a skywest, or ASA airplane.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
Bombardier knows full well the scope limit on jets larger than 50 seats, yet they were given some reason to paint it in Comair colors. Somebody with their finger near the "buy" switch at Delta told them something.
But once again, I haven't seen the aircraft and have only talked to six or seven who have. I'm basing my speculations on what others have told me. The aircraft may not even exist.
Don't forget, it only takes about 8-square feet of red, white and blue paint to make a comair airplane a skywest, or ASA airplane.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
Bombardier knows full well the scope limit on jets larger than 50 seats, yet they were given some reason to paint it in Comair colors. Somebody with their finger near the "buy" switch at Delta told them something.
But once again, I haven't seen the aircraft and have only talked to six or seven who have. I'm basing my speculations on what others have told me. The aircraft may not even exist.
FlyDeltaJets,
I was only repeating what someone who just got back from 70 training up in Monteal. I haven't even bid for the 70, the only way it benefits me in any way would be to have more senior guys get outta the way so I an get a slightly better line possibly in the 50.
Of course if we just got more 50's then that would help "my" cause better. Personally I'd rather keep getting more 50's which would mean more F/O's below me and a quicker upgrade, with lesser harm to mainline(Than with the 70/90).
Finding a happy medium between us and mainline would be a lot better than either totally pissing off mainline pilots or completing giving up on growth.
I was only repeating what someone who just got back from 70 training up in Monteal. I haven't even bid for the 70, the only way it benefits me in any way would be to have more senior guys get outta the way so I an get a slightly better line possibly in the 50.
Of course if we just got more 50's then that would help "my" cause better. Personally I'd rather keep getting more 50's which would mean more F/O's below me and a quicker upgrade, with lesser harm to mainline(Than with the 70/90).
Finding a happy medium between us and mainline would be a lot better than either totally pissing off mainline pilots or completing giving up on growth.
FlyDeltasJets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 664
skydiverdriver
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 869
It seems to me that all the animosity is coming from the Delta side of the equation. I havn't heard any DCI pilots say that they are angry at Delta pilots, but I sure have heard it the other way around. Seems funny to me that after all the things they did to us, this one little meeting makes them mad, but we are not. We are taking the high road on this deal, again.
And I say it one more time, at least we spoke to them, as they usually refuse to discuss anything with us when we want to talk.
And I say it one more time, at least we spoke to them, as they usually refuse to discuss anything with us when we want to talk.
skiddriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 405
Well, on that note I'm checking out of this thread with a couple of comments, which are all way off topic but have been touched on numerous times in this thread.
- I still disagree with the final decision of our MEC. Not because I want to get hired at Delta, not because I would like to improve relations with the Delta pilot group, and not because I have some old squadron-mates on furlough from mother D (though the last two are true); I asked Capt Lawson, in person and in writing, to reconsider the decision because I think we have a personal responsibility (all of us sentient beings- not just Comair pilots) to try and help out folks who need some help. I also specifically requested that the policy be changed for all furloughees, not just folks from Delta. I personally don't think that a person should expect to get something in return for a good deed, but then again, my wife says I never got over being a Boy Scout.
- There are plenty of folks around here at Comair who hold a grudge against the Delta pilot group; most of them just don't come post on this board. I would hate to think that our MEC's decision on the furloughees had anything to do with that. He told me face-to-face that it didn't, and that the issue was still open to discussion. The sticking point being that the Delta MEC would have to come back to the table, which I think we all realize isn't going to happen.
- The animosity between the two pilot groups has cause from both sides. Being human however (I think) many of us on both sides can more easily see the mote for the beam (Mat 7:3-5). It's a lot easier to point fingers and say nasty things that to reflect on our own wrongdoings and failings, and developing a snotty aura of self-righteousness doesn't help either. And it is also always easier for leaders to focus group anger on a scapegoat than to address difficult issues directly and rationally.
- The posters on this board are a small, self-selected sample of the two pilot groups, but I unfortunately think that the animosities are more widespread. I say unfortunate because I think that we'd all prosper from more cooperation and fewer personal attacks.
- Finally, this isn't an appeal for all of us to just "get along," but for goodness sakes, can't you guys find some other way to debate your (our) differences than to resort to personal attacks and insults? I know this is a (relatively) anonymous forum, but that doesn't mean that we need to discard the Queensbury rules.
I can't promise that I won't check this thread out again (it has a certain car wreck quality that makes it entertaining on a less mature level), but I think I've finished trying to discuss these issues here. Too much shouting, not enough listening.
- I still disagree with the final decision of our MEC. Not because I want to get hired at Delta, not because I would like to improve relations with the Delta pilot group, and not because I have some old squadron-mates on furlough from mother D (though the last two are true); I asked Capt Lawson, in person and in writing, to reconsider the decision because I think we have a personal responsibility (all of us sentient beings- not just Comair pilots) to try and help out folks who need some help. I also specifically requested that the policy be changed for all furloughees, not just folks from Delta. I personally don't think that a person should expect to get something in return for a good deed, but then again, my wife says I never got over being a Boy Scout.
- There are plenty of folks around here at Comair who hold a grudge against the Delta pilot group; most of them just don't come post on this board. I would hate to think that our MEC's decision on the furloughees had anything to do with that. He told me face-to-face that it didn't, and that the issue was still open to discussion. The sticking point being that the Delta MEC would have to come back to the table, which I think we all realize isn't going to happen.
- The animosity between the two pilot groups has cause from both sides. Being human however (I think) many of us on both sides can more easily see the mote for the beam (Mat 7:3-5). It's a lot easier to point fingers and say nasty things that to reflect on our own wrongdoings and failings, and developing a snotty aura of self-righteousness doesn't help either. And it is also always easier for leaders to focus group anger on a scapegoat than to address difficult issues directly and rationally.
- The posters on this board are a small, self-selected sample of the two pilot groups, but I unfortunately think that the animosities are more widespread. I say unfortunate because I think that we'd all prosper from more cooperation and fewer personal attacks.
- Finally, this isn't an appeal for all of us to just "get along," but for goodness sakes, can't you guys find some other way to debate your (our) differences than to resort to personal attacks and insults? I know this is a (relatively) anonymous forum, but that doesn't mean that we need to discard the Queensbury rules.
I can't promise that I won't check this thread out again (it has a certain car wreck quality that makes it entertaining on a less mature level), but I think I've finished trying to discuss these issues here. Too much shouting, not enough listening.
Last edited:
CMRFlyer,
Nice attitude. I just spoke with some friends from Delta about their contract. With furloughed pilots, Delta pilots CANNOT pick up overtime above 75 hours... So, anyone who is picking up "open time" it is because they have dropped trips and are now looking to pick up compensatory time. Get it? Quit yelling at General Lee - he is one of the few people on this forum who actually makes sense and he understands the contract - you don't.
So, to reiterate, he can't pick up "extra" open time if there are furloughees on the street...
You sound very bitter - you need to work on that.
Nice attitude. I just spoke with some friends from Delta about their contract. With furloughed pilots, Delta pilots CANNOT pick up overtime above 75 hours... So, anyone who is picking up "open time" it is because they have dropped trips and are now looking to pick up compensatory time. Get it? Quit yelling at General Lee - he is one of the few people on this forum who actually makes sense and he understands the contract - you don't.
So, to reiterate, he can't pick up "extra" open time if there are furloughees on the street...
You sound very bitter - you need to work on that.
skydiverdriver
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 869
AFELLOWAVIATOR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
- Posts
- 411
JI Gone OH
Scope is NOT for Sale
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2002
- Posts
- 180
"If there is in fact a picture of a 90-seater in Delta colors, than I am looking forward to flying it. Of course you know that any airplane over 70 seats must be flown by Delta pilots, according to our contract."
Not that I want to get in the mix, I rarely post anything on these boards, but just wanted to comment on the statement above. Being a furloughed Midway Pilot, I can attest to the fact that contracts mean nothing when a company files for Chapter 11. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! All of the JI boys and girls know what I am talking about. If and when Delta files for Chapter 11, you'll see what I am talking about. Take the contract and light fire under your a**, get out there and find another job, because that's all it's good for. If anyone needs more paper, let me know (I got an extra Midway Contract laying around somewhere).
Take Care, Fly Safe, and Stop the Bickering. Working Against One Another Moves Us In The Same Direction As A C-152 Demostrating Slow Flight In An 80 Knot Headwind. BACKWARDS!!
Not that I want to get in the mix, I rarely post anything on these boards, but just wanted to comment on the statement above. Being a furloughed Midway Pilot, I can attest to the fact that contracts mean nothing when a company files for Chapter 11. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! All of the JI boys and girls know what I am talking about. If and when Delta files for Chapter 11, you'll see what I am talking about. Take the contract and light fire under your a**, get out there and find another job, because that's all it's good for. If anyone needs more paper, let me know (I got an extra Midway Contract laying around somewhere).
Take Care, Fly Safe, and Stop the Bickering. Working Against One Another Moves Us In The Same Direction As A C-152 Demostrating Slow Flight In An 80 Knot Headwind. BACKWARDS!!
Last edited:
FurloughedAgain
Cabin Heating & Air Tech.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Posts
- 1,657
Bankruptcy
The days of the Frank Lorenzo bankruptcy have passed and, in fact, bankruptcy law has changed.
Notwithstanding what happened at Midway there are a few hard and fast rules regarding bankruptcy.
Myth: The judge can throw-away/rewrite/etc. the contract.
A bankruptcy judge can not simply abrogate a contract on a whim at the request of the company.
The company may be able to change sections of the contract with force majeur provisions in them if they claim that the financial problems are a result of acts of war, labor dispute, limits by suppliers etc. But those would be the ONLY sections which could be abrogated without going through the process.
What will really happen?
The company will go to the bankrupcy judge and say "Hey, Your honor...we can't afford to pay for (insert contract section here)"
At that time the company and the association are requred to enter into good-faith bargaining to change that section of the contract. Federal mediators will be assigned to help reach an expedient solution. IF the parties are unable to come to an agreement then the association and the company are free to pursue self-help -- JUST like they would during any contract negotiations.
THAT BEING SAID ... The judge's sole responsibility is to find $$$ for the debtors!!!
If a solution can not be achieved, the judge may THEN elect to abrogate sections of the contract.
Example: The US Airways pension issue. As you know, the pension is the pot-of-gold in a major airline contract. ALPA has always been willing to sacrifice virtually anything to protect retirement for its senior members. Carefully watch the US Airways pension issue (the pension is scheduled to be terminated and replaced with a PBBG + comapny plan on March 31) to see how the entire process plays out.
Will Comair fly 90 seat jets? Who knows. There are rumblings that Chautauqua has orders for 70 seat jets to be flown in the DCI system. I believe it is much more likely that Delta will terminate all of its own capital expendatures and let a code-share partner such as Chautauqua and/or Skywest take the financial burden and risk. That, as you can imagine, would be bad for the entire DAL family... Delta, Comair, and ASA.
Hopefully when the industry recovers ALPA will have the wisdom to negotiate "brand-scope" to prevent outsourcing of flying to independant providers such as Chautauqua, Mesa, Trans-States or the other lowest bidders.
Just my opinion.
The days of the Frank Lorenzo bankruptcy have passed and, in fact, bankruptcy law has changed.
Notwithstanding what happened at Midway there are a few hard and fast rules regarding bankruptcy.
Myth: The judge can throw-away/rewrite/etc. the contract.
A bankruptcy judge can not simply abrogate a contract on a whim at the request of the company.
The company may be able to change sections of the contract with force majeur provisions in them if they claim that the financial problems are a result of acts of war, labor dispute, limits by suppliers etc. But those would be the ONLY sections which could be abrogated without going through the process.
What will really happen?
The company will go to the bankrupcy judge and say "Hey, Your honor...we can't afford to pay for (insert contract section here)"
At that time the company and the association are requred to enter into good-faith bargaining to change that section of the contract. Federal mediators will be assigned to help reach an expedient solution. IF the parties are unable to come to an agreement then the association and the company are free to pursue self-help -- JUST like they would during any contract negotiations.
THAT BEING SAID ... The judge's sole responsibility is to find $$$ for the debtors!!!
If a solution can not be achieved, the judge may THEN elect to abrogate sections of the contract.
Example: The US Airways pension issue. As you know, the pension is the pot-of-gold in a major airline contract. ALPA has always been willing to sacrifice virtually anything to protect retirement for its senior members. Carefully watch the US Airways pension issue (the pension is scheduled to be terminated and replaced with a PBBG + comapny plan on March 31) to see how the entire process plays out.
Will Comair fly 90 seat jets? Who knows. There are rumblings that Chautauqua has orders for 70 seat jets to be flown in the DCI system. I believe it is much more likely that Delta will terminate all of its own capital expendatures and let a code-share partner such as Chautauqua and/or Skywest take the financial burden and risk. That, as you can imagine, would be bad for the entire DAL family... Delta, Comair, and ASA.
Hopefully when the industry recovers ALPA will have the wisdom to negotiate "brand-scope" to prevent outsourcing of flying to independant providers such as Chautauqua, Mesa, Trans-States or the other lowest bidders.
Just my opinion.
FurloughedAgain
Cabin Heating & Air Tech.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Posts
- 1,657
Train Wreck
This thread is like a train-wreck. Nobody's mind is ever going to be changed. I think its important to remember that not ONE of us who is participating here has any power to influence the outcome of events. We're all bystanders.
That being said, I want to make one more comment and then I'll go find a less "angry" thread.
A few messages up "Flaps30" said:
"In the current environment mainline will have to give something, now what do you think the top 50% would rather give up ? Their pay or more 70-seaters ? I'd say it will be some combination of relaxing scope somewhat and modest pay cuts."
I think that he came darn close to hitting the nail on the head.
If and when Delta begins to negotiate with its pilot group it will bring in the big enchilada -- pension.
They have already grumbled, as has every airline in the industry, that the pensions may be underfunded going forward. The vast majority of the political pressure which is being applied to ALPA will be to protect the retirement -- at any cost.
I hope beyond hope that DALPA has a better track record than the ALPA divisions at other majors, but I would bet the farm that they will sell the junior pilots out to save the retirement. Its not personal -- its just business.
Its good press to say that they wont give anything up until the 1060 are recalled. But when the rubber meets the road, the guy who is retiring next year has the power... and management knows it.
Chris Beebe, US Airways former MEC chairman said in October 2001, "NOT ONE NICKEL, NOT ONE JOB".
A little over a year and one-half later there are over 1800 pilots, 30% of the US Airways seniority list, furloughed. They are now the lowest paid of any major airline. They have had extremely limited success finding employment for any of their furloughees. They have obliterated their scope clause and allowed virtually all of their flying to be outsourced... and they are fighting to retain their retirement.
Dont trust the association to negotiate on behalf of your furloughed pilots. Out of sight... out of mind.
This thread is like a train-wreck. Nobody's mind is ever going to be changed. I think its important to remember that not ONE of us who is participating here has any power to influence the outcome of events. We're all bystanders.
That being said, I want to make one more comment and then I'll go find a less "angry" thread.
A few messages up "Flaps30" said:
"In the current environment mainline will have to give something, now what do you think the top 50% would rather give up ? Their pay or more 70-seaters ? I'd say it will be some combination of relaxing scope somewhat and modest pay cuts."
I think that he came darn close to hitting the nail on the head.
If and when Delta begins to negotiate with its pilot group it will bring in the big enchilada -- pension.
They have already grumbled, as has every airline in the industry, that the pensions may be underfunded going forward. The vast majority of the political pressure which is being applied to ALPA will be to protect the retirement -- at any cost.
I hope beyond hope that DALPA has a better track record than the ALPA divisions at other majors, but I would bet the farm that they will sell the junior pilots out to save the retirement. Its not personal -- its just business.
Its good press to say that they wont give anything up until the 1060 are recalled. But when the rubber meets the road, the guy who is retiring next year has the power... and management knows it.
Chris Beebe, US Airways former MEC chairman said in October 2001, "NOT ONE NICKEL, NOT ONE JOB".
A little over a year and one-half later there are over 1800 pilots, 30% of the US Airways seniority list, furloughed. They are now the lowest paid of any major airline. They have had extremely limited success finding employment for any of their furloughees. They have obliterated their scope clause and allowed virtually all of their flying to be outsourced... and they are fighting to retain their retirement.
Dont trust the association to negotiate on behalf of your furloughed pilots. Out of sight... out of mind.
Re: Bankruptcy
Good posts, both of them. I like your comments on the bankruptcy scenarios and think you're pretty much on target as to the process.
I agree too that the pension issues will be the key player in the consessionary bargaining process; they afford the Company its greatest leverage. The "A" plans at the majors are very high cost. I'm not an R&I expert, but it's not too difficult to understand that when the investments made by the managers of the plans tank (as they have), the plan becomes grossly underfunded and the Company is then left to funnel the programs with cash infusions. At a time like now, when there are no profits and little "cash", something has to give.
Yes, the "union" will do anything to protect the pensions. It should not be difficult to see why that is the case. Just ask yourselves ... who runs the union? Without exception, all of the national officers are senior pilots from a major airline --- their own pensions are on the block. The MEC's of the major airlines have the votes to make the decisions. The Chairmen of those MEC's are all senior pilots --- their own pensions are on the chopping block too. In other words, the decision makers, at almost every governing level of the "union", would be personally affected, directly, by a loss of the A plans, including their possible conversion to cash plans. "Self preservation is nature's first law."
I don't say that as a criticism of these folks or to make them out as "bad" people. They are not, but nevertheless reality is -- their decisions will be influenced primarily by their own fortunes. If they have to make major concessions they will argue, logically, that the more junior pilots have time to recover .... the senior pilots do not. Therefore, the concessions will affect the juniors more than they affect the seniors. A senior pilot that loses his pension today, won't be there tomorrow when it "might" be renegotiated. He will try to save it and the only way may well be major concessions (in whatever format) that affect mostly juniors and mid-range seniority pilots in the near term. As you said, it's not personal, it's just business.
A major contributor to that scenario is the fact that ALPA's unicameral system of governance does not, and cannot, provide balanced decision making that protects the welfare of the of the majority (who are not "senior"). It is simply weighted too heavily in favor of the senior membership (major airlines). There are no real checks and balances in the system. The juries, the judges and the "prosecuters" are all the same people.
The problem, if it is a problem, is systemic to ALPA. The union's government is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. As a President of ALPA once said to me, "the major airline MEC Chairmen will never give up that power." I don't think he was wrong.
I have no idea of whether the Company will ever offer 90-seat jets to Comair and ASA. In the light of the controversy surronding 70-seat jets, I think those of us in the "regional" sector of Delta would do well to focus on protecting what we have and should retain, rather than setting our sights on what we do not have.
There is a lot of moral justification to the idea that an aircraft of that size should be allocated to the "mainline" group. In my opinion, efforts by the ASA and CMR groups to secure such an aircraft for ourselves (IF the Company buys it) over the objections of the Delta pilots, would be no less inappropriate than the Delta pilot's efforts to transfer or limit our 70-seat aircraft. I don't see the D pilots not objecting.
While I recognize that these "dividing lines" based on aircraft seating are unilaterally created by the "mainline" and artificial, it is also true that the "regional" side of the equation has tacitly accepted the 70-seat divider for a long time. To suddenly attempt to redraw the line at 90-seats, without the consent of the Delta pilots, would, in my view, be little different from what they have done, i.e., attempt to redraw the line at 50-seats. Ethically, I feel we must practice what we preach.
Ideally, the mainline and regional groups should sit together, on an equal footing, and reach agreement as to where any "new" lines might be drawn. In the current atmosphere of mistrust, that is extremely difficult to do. Nevertheless, I feel it is in our mutual best interests.
If we can decide together where the line should be drawn in the first instance (and that's a very big IF), it will thereafter be much easier to decide who should fly what and how we might provide access to ALL of the Company's flying, for ALL of its pilots, without attempting to force an unwanted merger and impractical combining of "lists". In the light of the other "options" available both to the Company and to each of "us" respectively, it might do us well to get in bed together (DAL/ASA/CMR), before either of us is forced to sleep with the Company. In times like these, diversion from the traditional thought processes is probably beneficial to pilots.
Please note that I am not advocating a merger of the companies and I am not advocating "one list". I respectfully submit there are better and far easier ways to recall furloughed pilots and reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for future furloughs or extreme concessions, both of which are unpalatable to the pilots regardless of group.
"Brand Scope" is a nice-sounding cliche, but what does it really mean? Viewed in the light of its source (Duane Woerth), it is suspect. I don't want to be the proverbial pessimist, but this is a glass that I see as half-empty. The devil is in the details, and no one that I know has seen them. Perhaps some of those "who sitteth at the right hand of the father" may be privy to the intent but, to the best of my knowledge, there are no "regional pilots" in that group.
Would it really prevent outsourcing? Who will decide who and what is included in the "brand"; who will decide what is "scoped out" and what is "scoped in"? Will it be the same folks that decided the strategy of anti-RJ Scope ... or will the RJ pilots be excluded in this round of decision making ... again?
Does the concept really "include" subsidiaries and exclude subcontractors .... or is that just what some of us would like to see? I could ask many more questions but that's enough for starters. Before those of us on the subsidiary side of the house bite into the "brand scope" pie, it might do us well to learn the ingriedients. This could very well turn out to be another one of those infamous "sh!t sandwiches" with a new crust.
Personally, I'm scared stiff when a group of people that I don't know and who don't like me, in a room to which I am denied access and, who do not represent my interests, have the power to decide what is "best for me". Until I have an equal vote in determining my own fate coupled with the ability to say no, I can only see the brand scope glass as half-empty and highly suspect.
One final point on which you and I may disagree. You said, and I
If this concept of "brand scope" is indeed viable, then we must do it now. Waiting until the industry "recovers" will most likely make in both unnecessary and meaningless. IMO, the wrong kind of Scope has been a major contributor to the current mess. By the time we have a recovery the brand, whatever it may be, is not likely to resemble anything we know today. One should "brand" one's cattle while he/she still owns them.
Just my opinion.
FurloughedAgain said:
Good posts, both of them. I like your comments on the bankruptcy scenarios and think you're pretty much on target as to the process.
I agree too that the pension issues will be the key player in the consessionary bargaining process; they afford the Company its greatest leverage. The "A" plans at the majors are very high cost. I'm not an R&I expert, but it's not too difficult to understand that when the investments made by the managers of the plans tank (as they have), the plan becomes grossly underfunded and the Company is then left to funnel the programs with cash infusions. At a time like now, when there are no profits and little "cash", something has to give.
Yes, the "union" will do anything to protect the pensions. It should not be difficult to see why that is the case. Just ask yourselves ... who runs the union? Without exception, all of the national officers are senior pilots from a major airline --- their own pensions are on the block. The MEC's of the major airlines have the votes to make the decisions. The Chairmen of those MEC's are all senior pilots --- their own pensions are on the chopping block too. In other words, the decision makers, at almost every governing level of the "union", would be personally affected, directly, by a loss of the A plans, including their possible conversion to cash plans. "Self preservation is nature's first law."
I don't say that as a criticism of these folks or to make them out as "bad" people. They are not, but nevertheless reality is -- their decisions will be influenced primarily by their own fortunes. If they have to make major concessions they will argue, logically, that the more junior pilots have time to recover .... the senior pilots do not. Therefore, the concessions will affect the juniors more than they affect the seniors. A senior pilot that loses his pension today, won't be there tomorrow when it "might" be renegotiated. He will try to save it and the only way may well be major concessions (in whatever format) that affect mostly juniors and mid-range seniority pilots in the near term. As you said, it's not personal, it's just business.
A major contributor to that scenario is the fact that ALPA's unicameral system of governance does not, and cannot, provide balanced decision making that protects the welfare of the of the majority (who are not "senior"). It is simply weighted too heavily in favor of the senior membership (major airlines). There are no real checks and balances in the system. The juries, the judges and the "prosecuters" are all the same people.
The problem, if it is a problem, is systemic to ALPA. The union's government is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. As a President of ALPA once said to me, "the major airline MEC Chairmen will never give up that power." I don't think he was wrong.
I have no idea of whether the Company will ever offer 90-seat jets to Comair and ASA. In the light of the controversy surronding 70-seat jets, I think those of us in the "regional" sector of Delta would do well to focus on protecting what we have and should retain, rather than setting our sights on what we do not have.
There is a lot of moral justification to the idea that an aircraft of that size should be allocated to the "mainline" group. In my opinion, efforts by the ASA and CMR groups to secure such an aircraft for ourselves (IF the Company buys it) over the objections of the Delta pilots, would be no less inappropriate than the Delta pilot's efforts to transfer or limit our 70-seat aircraft. I don't see the D pilots not objecting.
While I recognize that these "dividing lines" based on aircraft seating are unilaterally created by the "mainline" and artificial, it is also true that the "regional" side of the equation has tacitly accepted the 70-seat divider for a long time. To suddenly attempt to redraw the line at 90-seats, without the consent of the Delta pilots, would, in my view, be little different from what they have done, i.e., attempt to redraw the line at 50-seats. Ethically, I feel we must practice what we preach.
Ideally, the mainline and regional groups should sit together, on an equal footing, and reach agreement as to where any "new" lines might be drawn. In the current atmosphere of mistrust, that is extremely difficult to do. Nevertheless, I feel it is in our mutual best interests.
If we can decide together where the line should be drawn in the first instance (and that's a very big IF), it will thereafter be much easier to decide who should fly what and how we might provide access to ALL of the Company's flying, for ALL of its pilots, without attempting to force an unwanted merger and impractical combining of "lists". In the light of the other "options" available both to the Company and to each of "us" respectively, it might do us well to get in bed together (DAL/ASA/CMR), before either of us is forced to sleep with the Company. In times like these, diversion from the traditional thought processes is probably beneficial to pilots.
Please note that I am not advocating a merger of the companies and I am not advocating "one list". I respectfully submit there are better and far easier ways to recall furloughed pilots and reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for future furloughs or extreme concessions, both of which are unpalatable to the pilots regardless of group.
"Brand Scope" is a nice-sounding cliche, but what does it really mean? Viewed in the light of its source (Duane Woerth), it is suspect. I don't want to be the proverbial pessimist, but this is a glass that I see as half-empty. The devil is in the details, and no one that I know has seen them. Perhaps some of those "who sitteth at the right hand of the father" may be privy to the intent but, to the best of my knowledge, there are no "regional pilots" in that group.
Would it really prevent outsourcing? Who will decide who and what is included in the "brand"; who will decide what is "scoped out" and what is "scoped in"? Will it be the same folks that decided the strategy of anti-RJ Scope ... or will the RJ pilots be excluded in this round of decision making ... again?
Does the concept really "include" subsidiaries and exclude subcontractors .... or is that just what some of us would like to see? I could ask many more questions but that's enough for starters. Before those of us on the subsidiary side of the house bite into the "brand scope" pie, it might do us well to learn the ingriedients. This could very well turn out to be another one of those infamous "sh!t sandwiches" with a new crust.
Personally, I'm scared stiff when a group of people that I don't know and who don't like me, in a room to which I am denied access and, who do not represent my interests, have the power to decide what is "best for me". Until I have an equal vote in determining my own fate coupled with the ability to say no, I can only see the brand scope glass as half-empty and highly suspect.
One final point on which you and I may disagree. You said, and I
If this concept of "brand scope" is indeed viable, then we must do it now. Waiting until the industry "recovers" will most likely make in both unnecessary and meaningless. IMO, the wrong kind of Scope has been a major contributor to the current mess. By the time we have a recovery the brand, whatever it may be, is not likely to resemble anything we know today. One should "brand" one's cattle while he/she still owns them.
Just my opinion.
Last edited:
?
BUMPBUMP
BUMPBUMP
General Lee said:As far as the Bankruptcy rumors---ummm, NOT true. Our CFO--Michele Burns---said that we had an Operating PROFIT of $177 million last quarter---and that the $230 million dollar loss was due to the parking of the 727's, putting initial seed money for Song-$65 million, and buying 700 Kiosks for the ticket counters--at a price of $30 million. (They are running out of one time charges) No bankruptcy rumors here-----and I am sure they would sell off Comair and ASA beforehand. Delta cares about the stockholders---and they have not missed a dividend yet---even through 9-11. So sorry, the rumors are not true.
But, the Comair rumor about stopping hiring just might be. Don't get me wrong, I do not wish a furlough on anyone----no way. But, I would hate it if Comair had to stop it's HUGE growth----and maybe, just maybe---mainline got some 70 seaters. Why doesn't somebody out there try to call someone at the CVG chief pilot's office and find out. Maybe it isn't true. But, if there were some layoffs---maybe the Comair guys could ask ASA pilots for some jobs---they were nice to us.
Flash 7-----you're wrong!
RJCAP----Scope clause prohibits you from anything more than 57 70 seaters---you know that! Airbus, yeah for us maybe. And those paycuts will be negotiated---with things in it for us. The 70 seaters will look nice--"Dance your Pants off!" (new slogan for Dance--a subsidiary of Delta)
Bye Bye---General Lee
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
