Comair, watch out!

[surplus1]

Sorry Surplus, I stand by my statement. Your argument did nothing to change my mind. You made an allegation that mainline pilots are actively trying to prevent mgt from operating rjs at mainline. I think that is incorrect. Mgt has no desire to ever operate rj's at mainline. They are the ones preventing it. ALPA is not.

I do not know that my argument is specious. In fact, the very reason that I posted was to correct the inaccuracies in your statement. You can point out many of ALPA's sins, and often you would be correct. However, to say that ALPA intentionally prevented management from operating a jet at mainline lacks even the appearance of accuracy.

I find it ironic that you claim that we are intentionally trying to keep management from operating rj's at mainline, and in the very same post you criticize us for trying to "steal" "your" 70-seaters.

You can't argue both sides of the issue. Either we want them or we don't. Which is it?

I know I can't convince you of what you simply don't want to see or acknowledge, no matter what (and you could say the same for me). If it were just you and I, most likely I'd have moved on to different issues and you would probably have done the same. We could simply agree to disagree. However, lots of other people read what we write, so I have no choice but to rebut you and you're in the same boat. The stakes are just to high for silence.

Both you and ALPA insist that you aren't trying to prevent the operation of RJs, yet almost every day someone at ALPA provides more evidence to the contrary. Take a look at the following and observe its source. Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

As for the 70-seaters: In 1996 you didn't want them or the 50-seaters. Your infamous Scope permitted and unlimited number, of either or both, with no restrictions and that was when my airline was just a lowly subcontractor. In 2000, after we (Comair alone) had already ordered 50 more RJs (30/50-seaters + 20/70-seaters), firm orders costing 1 billion dollars, and optioned 115 more (70/70-seaters + 45/50-seaters), you changed your mind, attempted to transfer the 70-seaters to yourselves, failed but achieved a limit of 57 total, not just for Comair but for ALL DCI carriers, and further imposed additional restrictions that today, were it not for force majuere, could cause us to park nearly 80 RJs throughout the Delta system. All of this after we have been purchased by and become an integral part of the very same Company that employs us both.

Then you tell me you're not against the RJ, Delta can have as many as it wants on the mainline, as long as we get out of our cockpits and let YOU fly them. At the same time my union and you, also tell me that I can't be on the Delta list in accordance with standard procedure and share in the flying that is in fact mine anyway. What must I do then? Give up my job and go home so that you and your friends can fly my former aircraft? Why should I do that? Because the union has decided that the mainline pilot is a superior and more worthy pilot with more rights than the inferior regional pilots who would lose their jobs, but could always have the privilege of applying at the mainline? Where, pray tell, is the "irony" in all that?

All I can tell you and anyone else who reads is that h*ll will freeze over before we accept that unadulterated BS. You have in effect declared war on us and expect us to just roll over and do whatever pleases you all. That's not going to happen. We are small, you outnumber us 8-1, you have much more money and, our own union is solidly in your corner. Despite the odds, we nevertheless will fight for our rights and for what is ours. You will not take it away without a very bloody scrap. Perhaps you'll win in the end and we may be eliminated, but before that happens you'll be licking a lot of wounds.

We have done everything we can short of abdication, to try and reach a peaceful accord and understanding with you all. All you do is laugh at us. Well, "he who laughs last, laughs best". Our union has taken your side against us. Regretably, we have people on our side too. We don't like who they are, but when our survival is at stake, we will have in the future to accept aid from wherever it comes. [Much like the USA in our war on terrorism.] On our side will be the management, the manufacturers of airframes and engines, community organizations and the public.

Either you back off from the predatory behavior or we'll just have to duke it out. The sad part is its not going to be pretty for you or for us. Maybe you'll come to your senses before its too late. We're hoping and praying for that, but we're not holding our breath and waiting.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

I know I can't convince you of what you simply don't want to see or acknowledge, no matter what (and you could say the same for me).



--------It remain unconvinced not because I don't want to see or acknowledge, but because your allegation was untrue.




If it were just you and I, most likely I'd have moved on to different issues and you would probably have done the same. We could simply agree to disagree. However, lots of other people read what we write, so I have no choice but to rebut you and you're in the same boat. The stakes are just to high for silence.




--------True, but I am getting pretty tired of it. My replaced status has really taken a lot of wind out of my sails. I have always enjoyed my interactions on this board, but lately they have been a lot less enjoyable. It is no fault of anyone's but OBL and our management, but let's just say I'm a little down on anything to do with Delta. If I have been a bit short in my responses lately, that's the reason.




Both you and ALPA insist that you aren't trying to prevent the operation of RJs, yet almost every day someone at ALPA provides more evidence to the contrary. Take a look at the following and observe its source. Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

---------The link didn't work. Perhaps you could try again. In the meantime, I'll try to search for what you meant.



As for the 70-seaters: In 1996 you didn't want them or the 50-seaters.



---------That is a common, but incorrect, allegation. It would be more accurate to say that DALPA did not want them enough to give up enough negotiating capital to get them. I think it was a mistake.



Your infamous Scope permitted and unlimited number, of either or both, with no restrictions and that was when my airline was just a lowly subcontractor.

-------Our scope is indeed infamous. I would go so far as to say it sucks.

In 2000, after we (Comair alone) had already ordered 50 more RJs (30/50-seaters + 20/70-seaters), firm orders costing 1 billion dollars, and optioned 115 more (70/70-seaters + 45/50-seaters), you changed your mind, attempted to transfer the 70-seaters to yourselves, failed but achieved a limit of 57 total, not just for Comair but for ALL DCI carriers, and further imposed additional restrictions that today, were it not for force majuere, could cause us to park nearly 80 RJs throughout the Delta system.


----------That is incorrect. FM has nothing to do with block-hour limitations. Your would have unfettered growth right now with or without FM. It is 3 quarters of losses and our lack of foresight that allowed mgt to shrink us while growing you. Also, I take exception with your 80 jet statement. With our scope intact, you were allowed 36% of our flying. From Jan to June DCI performed 36.82% of it. That .82% of our block hours would not equate to anywhere near 80 jets. In fact, it would not even neccessitate parking one jet.




Then you tell me you're not against the RJ, Delta can have as many as it wants on the mainline, as long as we get out of our cockpits and let YOU fly them.


--------You have never been asked to get out of your cockpit. Such a claim does this discussion absolutely no good. We make no claims on the airplanes you have. We just don't think you should be allowed unlimited amounts of OUR flying.




and share in the flying that is in fact mine anyway.


------Where in your contract does it state this?



What must I do then? Give up my job and go home so that you and your friends can fly my former aircraft? Why should I do that? Because the union has decided that the mainline pilot is a superior and more worthy pilot with more rights than the inferior regional pilots who would lose their jobs, but could always have the privilege of applying at the mainline? Where, pray tell, is the "irony" in all that?





----------Again, no one would be losing their jobs. Again, you are making unsubstantiated claims.



All I can tell you and anyone else who reads is that h*ll will freeze over before we accept that unadulterated BS. You have in effect declared war on us and expect us to just roll over and do whatever pleases you all. That's not going to happen. We are small, you outnumber us 8-1, you have much more money and, our own union is solidly in your corner. Despite the odds, we nevertheless will fight for our rights and for what is ours. You will not take it away without a very bloody scrap. Perhaps you'll win in the end and we may be eliminated, but before that happens you'll be licking a lot of wounds.




------------Noble, but melodramatic and unnecessary. No one has declared war on you, and no one expects you to roll over. We are protecting our flying. If you expect us to allow you to have unlimited amounts of it, than I'm afraid you are in for a disappointment. BTW, many of us are already "licking a lot of wounds."





". Our union has taken your side against us. Regretably, we have people on our side too. We don't like who they are, but when our survival is at stake, we will have in the future to accept aid from wherever it comes. [Much like the USA in our war on terrorism.] On our side will be the management, the manufacturers of airframes and engines, community organizations and the public.



---------I'm surprised that you don't find it illuminating that your goals coincide with mgt and government's. It is rare that those two groups are on the side of the pilots. Yet you seem to think that in this case, they have changed their stripes.

"You will be judged by the company you keep."




Either you back off from the predatory behavior or we'll just have to duke it out. The sad part is its not going to be pretty for you or for us. Maybe you'll come to your senses before its too late. We're hoping and praying for that, but we're not holding our breath and waiting.

----------If you are waiting for us to allow you unlimited amounts of our flying, you are wise not to hold your breath.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Originally posted by FlyDeltasJets

---True, but I am getting pretty tired of it. My replaced status has really taken a lot of wind out of my sails. I have always enjoyed my interactions on this board, but lately they have been a lot less enjoyable. It is no fault of anyone's but OBL and our management, but let's just say I'm a little down on anything to do with Delta. If I have been a bit short in my responses lately, that's the reason.

I understand your frustration with the furlough and would like to say again that I'm very sorry this has happened to you and to all the others. I sincerely hope things will take a turn for the better and get you back to work soon.

You haven't been "replaced" FDJ. The company has temporarily laid you off because it doesn't need as many people to do what you were doing before, in the equipment you operated. They've lost a lot of business for 2 reasons. One of them you listed above (the 9/11 events), the other is and economic downturn that was coming anyway. Put the two together and we've had a 15-20% loss of passengers, a gigantic loss of revenue, sudden over capacity in one category and under capacity in the other. The loss of life on 9/11 was horrific. The economic damage that our country has sustained is exponential and long term, I know we must keep a "stiff upper lip", but it was truly a big hit.

There simply are not enough paying customers on some of the routes you were serving to justify the use of the aircraft size you were flying. That isn't your fault, it isn't our fault and it isn't management's fault. Management does not want the downsizing and the loss of revenue any more than you do. What's happened to you (and others) isn't about RJs at all, it's about loss of business.

That the RJ happens to be here and available coupled with the fact that it can operate at a profit with less that 1/2 the customers required for you to operate at a break even, is actually a blessing in disguise for the company. They didn't plan it this way to hurt you or to help us.

We were growing before all of this happened. It has always been known that the small operations would be less affected in and economic downturn. That's not a surprise. Yes, we are operating some of your sectors but only because there is not enough traffic to justify the larger equipment. When the traffic returns you will be displacing us on many routes, as it should be.

It's OK for you to be angry as long as you focus it on the right things, 1)UBL and 2) the recession.

---------The link didn't work. Perhaps you could try again. In the meantime, I'll try to search for what you meant.

The link works fine when I try it so I don't know why you're having trouble. Please try again. Its only purpose is to prove the point that ALPA is anti-RJ.

---That is a common, but incorrect, allegation. It would be more accurate to say that DALPA did not want them enough to give up enough negotiating capital to get them. I think it was a mistake.

OK, I'll restate it. You did want the RJs but you put the cart before the horse, gambled your future for few pieces of 8, satisfied the seniors at the expense of the juniors, call it whatever you prefer its really all the same. Yes, it was a huge mistake. The bad part isn't that you made a mistake, it's that you keep repeating the same mistake.

BTW, what's with this DALPA thing? Have you guys formed a new union?

----------That is incorrect. FM has nothing to do with block-hour limitations. Your would have unfettered growth right now with or without FM. It is 3 quarters of losses and our lack of foresight that allowed mgt. to shrink us while growing you. Also, I take exception with your 80 jet statement. With our scope intact, you were allowed 36% of our flying. From Jan to June DCI performed 36.82% of it. That .82% of our block hours would not equate to anywhere near 80 jets. In fact, it would not even necessitate parking one jet.

We differ. Your contract allowed first 34% for starters. Among others, FM is a factor. Of course, if we have not exceeded the limits you imposed, then you have nothing to complain about; you got what you asked for. Do you recognize this language?

6. Excused Compliance and Negotiated Reset

a. If an event in Section 1 E. 5. a. 1), 2), or 3) excusing compliance, occurs after there has been an automatic fixed reset, there will be no second automatic fixed reset, but the Company and the Association will promptly meet and confer to reset block hour plans and planned percentages at levels appropriate to the circumstances.

b. The Company will be excused from compliance with the block hour plans and planned percentages, for all affected years, in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance. If the Company is so excused from compliance, the Company and the Association will promptly meet and confer to reset block hour plans and planned percentages at levels appropriate to the circumstances.

It appears to me that force majeure plays some role in subparagraph 6.b. and is one of the triggers ("in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance"). The consecutive quarters of operating at a loss is another. I think that both are currently in play, but either one pulls the trigger. Either way, you have to meet and confer to reset block hour plans and planned percentages. Key words, IMO, will be "levels appropriate to the circumstances". It will be interesting to see how appropriate to the circumstances is ultimately defined. Sounds like a negotiating nightmare.

As you point out we are already at 36.82% or .82% above the current permitted level. 80 aircraft (as we fly them) generate about 290K block hours in a year. Now throw in another 22 aircraft that Delta just added by contracting with CHQ. That's roughly another 80K block hours. Since you are not currently growing, where will the percentage be when those 102 aircraft are on line? Could I guess maybe 45%? Once we are already there just how do you expect to return it to the desired level?

The 22 CHQ airplanes are supposedly going to be up and running by the end of '03. I don't know what the fleet plans are at SKYW or ACA, but they are included too. Given the planned delivery schedule for CMR and ASA, what's that going to do to the percentage? Since we are already "over" the current limit, the only way it could be honored is if we stop all new deliveries immediately at CMR, ASA, SKYW and ACA, plus DAL cancels the new agreement with CHQ (which would get no complaints from me). That's how I got the 80 aircraft number (and I wasn't even counting CHQ). I'll grant you it is not a perfect number (it's only an estimate based on available data), but its not too far off over the next 2-3 years.

Now tell me if you can, how many narrow-body aircraft (370K block hours) would DAL have to add over the next 3 years to allow us to accept our scheduled deliveries without exceeding the 36% (later 37%) that we have already exceeded?

I'm no expert but I don't understand why the Company ever agreed to those percentages in the first place when its already scheduled RJ deliveries would obviously exceed them within the life of the contract.

Continue to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

--------You have never been asked to get out of your cockpit. Such a claim does this discussion absolutely no good. We make no claims on the airplanes you have. We just don't think you should be allowed unlimited amounts of OUR flying.

You are splitting hairs and arguing semantics. Technically you make no claims on the aircraft that we have however, you prevent all future deliveries and effectively lower utilization of existing airframes. That forces us out of our seats and cockpits to compensate for the fact that the market cannot generate the mainline growth that you are demanding. You can call it whatever you want, the net effect on us is the same. Every time your "percentages" force us to park one airplane, we lose 10 pilots. Every time we don't accept delivery of one airplane, we lose 5 upgrades. It hasn't happened yet, but the threat is very real.

That is what your "ratios" and linkage can do to us. Your method is to attempt to force growth at mainline that is not justified by market requirements. If you don't succeed, you then stop growth at the subsidiaries even though it is justified by market conditions. That's absurd. It is detrimental to the business as a whole and severely damaging to us, while guaranteeing absolutely nothing for you.

The only possible solution for the Company is to place the RJs at the mainline where you expect them to be paid at much higher base rates plus absorb the burden of your infrastructure which exceeds ours by about 46%. ("Burden" is the costs above your pay rates). Perhaps you plan to fly them for much lower pay rates than we do? Help me out by telling me just what the Delta pilots plan to do that would justify placing even one RJ at the mainline? Since you want our airplanes, what exactly are you willing to do to get them?

----Where in your contract does it state this?

This is what it says in my contract:

Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all present and future flying performed in or for the revenue service of the Company or its subsidiaries will be performed by the pilots on the seniority list in accordance with this Agreement. Such flying includes all flying on the Company's aircraft, whether leased, owned, or under the Company's operational control …… etc.

What that means in English is pretty simple. Any aircraft that is placed on the Comair certificate, no matter who puts it there or why, is our flying. It's not yours and it never has been yours. It's not our problem that you couldn't figure out how to prevent aircraft from being placed on our certificate. Once they are there, the flying is ours. The only thing you can try is to prevent the airplanes from flying at all or force their transfer to your certificate. That is exactly what your Scope is trying to do.

----------Again, no one would be losing their jobs. Again, you are making unsubstantiated claims.

How can you guarantee that no one would be losing his or her jobs? Thanks, but we prefer not to wait until after it has happened to see if our claims are substantiated. We believe that would happen and we are acting to prevent if before the fact, not after.

------------Noble, but melodramatic and unnecessary. No one has declared war on you, and no one expects you to roll over. We are protecting our flying. If you expect us to allow you to have unlimited amounts of it, than I'm afraid you are in for a disappointment. BTW, many of us are already "licking a lot of wounds."

I'll concede the melodrama but think it justified. Well, we didn't have a formal declaration of war in 'Nam either, but nearly 60,000 Americans died there nonetheless. You are protecting what you call "your flying" and we are protecting what we call "our flying". As I see it, that's six of one, half a dozen of the other. The wounds that some of you are licking now were not inflicted by us. We're sorry for those wounds. If we wind up in a fight for survival, then that's different. We'll be lamenting our own wounds, not yours.

---------I'm surprised that you don't find it illuminating that your goals coincide with mgt. and government's. It is rare that those two groups are on the side of the pilots. Yet you seem to think that in this case, they have changed their stripes. "You will be judged by the company you keep."

I find it far worse that illuminating. It is sickening. However, it was not our choice and is not of our making. We sought actively to join forces with you and we are still doing so. You rejected us and you continue to do so. The union and you all have forced us into a corner. We did not seek an unholy alliance and we still haven't. It is merely a coincidence (created by your actions and our unions actions) we have forced into a position that happens to coincide with theirs. If we must chose between our demise at your hand or a temporary alliance with the devil, so be it.

So much for all the rhetoric. It may be informative because it gets feelings, beliefs and facts out into the open. We know much more now about where we stand than before and it unfortunately remains on opposite sides of the fence. I propose a truce and a joint effort to remove the fence. Here's a different suggestion.

Suppose we leave everything pretty much the way it is. No single list, no merger. Separate contract for you, separate contract for us. We do just one thing differently in hopes of fixing it.

Why don't the 3 of us (DAL/CMR/ASA) sit down together and hash out a single (domestic) Scope clause that will be common to all and to each of us? We negotiate it between ourselves and decide by consensus. Either we all agree or it doesn't happen. Once we have it and have all singed on, we demand if of the Company together. It would then appear with the identical words in all three contracts. If the Company doesn't agree, we stand together and fight the Company together until it does agree.

There's a window of opportunity right now and it will open further in the near term. Let's take advantage of the setbacks and use them to improve our lot. If we can stop arguing about how the chicken crossed the road long enough, we just might be able to pull it off.

This would not solve the problem of the union's alleged failure to represent but it would certainly remove the negative impact that the failure has caused for each of us. Remove the cause and the rest might well fall into place.

What do you think? Are you willing to try?

 

[publisher]

Surplus

Surplus,

I have not paid much attention to this lately, but can you write.

Glad to see that you are still after it and not letting the reality of the situation get in the way. Your perseverance is admirable.

Good luck

 

[surplus1]

Re: Surplus

Surplus,

I have not paid much attention to this lately, but can you write.

Glad to see that you are still after it and not letting the reality of the situation get in the way. Your perseverance is admirable.

Good luck

Thank you. "Surrender? We have just begun to fight!"

Best regards.