Comair, watch out!

[Timebuilder]

>>Until something fixes the pilot supply and demand problem, it will always haunt us. If it were possible to instill on kids coming out of these flight school factories that working for slave wages to build time, ultimatly kills their prospects for future bucks. I know, how do you get the experience.

When kids see the writing on the wall regarding the changes in commercial aviation, they will enroll in those flight schools in far fewer numbers, making pilots more scarce a commodity. Eventually, supply and demand finds a balance in the marketplace.

The market is the only force capable of "fixing" the supply problem.

 

[BigFlyr]

I don't mean to pick on you, but could you please tell me how you managed to classify Midway Airlines as a "major" airline in your mind?

I didn't mean to imply that Midway was or ever was going to be a major airline. I was just giving the only example I know of where both full-size jets and regional jets operated under the same roof.

 

[surplus1]

I didn't mean to imply that Midway was or ever was going to be a major airline. I was just giving the only example I know of where both full-size jets and regional jets operated under the same roof.

There is one example in North America where a major airline flys the CL-65. Air Canada.

It hasn't happened at any US based major airline because the pilots of those airlines have intentionally prevented it from happening.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

It hasn't happened at any US based major airline because the pilots of those airlines have intentionally prevented it from happening.

That statement is a bit simplistic. I defy you to name an instance when MGT wanted to operate an rj at a major and the pilots have prevented it.

It is accurate to say that we have not done as much as we could to achieve it, but to say we have intentionally prevented it is incorrect. The fact is, despite many allegations to the contrary, DALPA did propose pay rates for rj's during the last contract negotiations. That does not sound like the actions of a pilot group who is actively trying to prevent mgt from flying a specific type.

I know that you were referring to the PID. You are correct that ALPA prevented that from happening (which was, in my view, a mistake). However, it is important to note that even if it was granted, there is very little reason to believe that mgt would have then combined the lists and put rj's on mainline.

I think a more accurate statement would be that mgt has intentionally prevented j's at mainline, but the pilots have been too compliant with mgt's intentions.

 

[RJ Bum]

FlyDeltasJets

Could you please post those RJ rates you are refering too, I'm just curious. Thanks

 

[surplus1]

That statement is a bit simplistic. I defy you to name an instance when MGT wanted to operate an rj at a major and the pilots have prevented it.

Perhaps it is simplistic, but it is also accurate. If the mainline pilots had not tired to scope out all RJs, they would probably all be flying at the majors today. You gave management a free ride and they took it. Your argument is specious and I suspect you know that.

It is accurate to say that we have not done as much as we could to achieve it, but to say we have intentionally prevented it is incorrect. The fact is, despite many allegations to the contrary, DALPA did propose pay rates for rj's during the last contract negotiations. That does not sound like the actions of a pilot group who is actively trying to prevent mgt from flying a specific type.

I don't think it is incorrect at all. I also don't doubt that the DMEC proposed rates for an RJ. You conveniently neglected to mention which RJ. How about a guess that it was for the 70-seat RJ that you were trying to steal from us? Prior to that time, the only thing you proposed was more scope against the RJ. There is one other major airline that also proposed rates for an RJ. That was AA and they proposed rates for the 70-seater that they were trying to take from Eagle. Two predators making two predatory porposals, both trying to take from others. Hardly innovative.

It is quite safe and completely accurate to state that every major airline that could do so has attempted to scope the RJ out of existence. Recently, recognizing that you failed, 2 of you (AA and DL) decided to swipe the 70-seaters. so you proposed rates for them. AA even had a TA on it, but the membership rejected the TA. I could probably dig up those rates if you'd like. I have them somewhere. They actually undercut Comair's proposals. Tell you what, you post the rates that DL proposed and I'll post the ones that the APA TA'd. How's that.

I know that you were referring to the PID. You are correct that ALPA prevented that from happening (which was, in my view, a mistake). However, it is important to note that even if it was granted, there is very little reason to believe that mgt would have then combined the lists and put rj's on mainline.

Yes, ALPA prevented it and the DMEC fought it with lawyers. It was indeed a mistake and a very big one. Not to mention extremely stupid. Neither one of us knows what management would have done. I'll grant you they probably would not have jumped at it and may never have agreed. That depends a great deal on what was presented to them. There is little doubt that a reasonable deal, if presented to them, might well have saved Delta at least $680 millions. That's almost as much as they paid for ALL of ASA and 1/3 of what they paid to buy Comair.

I think a more accurate statement would be that mgt has intentionally prevented j's at mainline, but the pilots have been too compliant with mgt's intentions.

Not surprisingly, we disagree again. The union's policy of aparthied which was generated and is currently supported by all mainline MECs is what precluded the placement of RJs at the mainline. Management merely took advantage of the opportunity you gave them. Your own MEC has done it not once, but twice.

Don't forget who introduced the RJ to North America. When we knew it was going to happen, the truth is we tried desperately to get your attention and to make you aware of what could be done. Your leaders rejected every overture and even went so far as to demand that we apologize for making the attempts. FDJ, you just aren't aware of what went on behind the scenes or you would not make the statements that you do. I know what went down and I'm not guessing. I can document it all with names and dates and copies. I'll never do that in a public forum like this, but I assure you I'm not guessing about this.

You weren't even working for Delta at the time so you could not know first hand. I'm sure you've been told a lot of things and I don't blame you for believing them. Some may be true, but the majority is not. This "story" didn't start yesterday. It's been ongoing continuously since very early in 1993, before Comair took delivery of the 1st RJ ever flown in this country.

I have little doubt that if you really knew the truth, you'd be singing a very different tune. It's not you that I'm angry with, its a series of arrogant leaders of your destiny. When it comes to the RJ question you only had one leader since '89 with an ounce of vision and he was really a WAL pilot with a tenure that was based on a different agenda (a good one) and too brief to do anything.

Your airline has had a remarkable influence and leadership role in ALPA for the last 20 years (as properly you should have). You've done a lot of good things to be sure, but on this particular issue you completely blew an opportunity to make history. This little RJ has had as much impact on our industry as the introduction of jets in the early 60's. It''s still not 10 years old and may well wind up having more impact over the long term because of our failure to see it for what it was and deal with it in a way that would protect us all, particularly the core, which is the mainline.

The fact is that the mainline carriers while trying to protect themselves from the RJ, have put us all into a precarious position that could well upset the apple cart.

 

[PuffDriver]

Don't forget who introduced the RJ to North America. When we knew it was going to happen, the truth is we tried desperately to get your attention and to make you aware of what could be done. Your leaders rejected every overture and even went so far as to demand that we apologize for making the attempts. FDJ, you just aren't aware of what went on behind the scenes or you would not make the statements that you do. I know what went down and I'm not guessing. I can document it all with names and dates and copies. I'll never do that in a public forum like this, but I assure you I'm not guessing about this.

<<<<Man, what a weak statement.>>>>> "I've got the facts, but I won't reveal them. You were proven wrong on the ALPA forums as well, John.>>>>>>


You weren't even working for Delta at the time so you could not know first hand. I'm sure you've been told a lot of things and I don't blame you for believing them. Some may be true, but the majority is not. This "story" didn't start yesterday. It's been ongoing continuously since very early in 1993, before Comair took delivery of the 1st RJ ever flown in this country.

<<<Little John, you are not privy to plenty of things as well. Your "solution" doesn't solve anything.>>>>>

I have little doubt that if you really knew the truth, you'd be singing a very different tune. It's not you that I'm angry with, its a series of arrogant leaders of your destiny. When it comes to the RJ question you only had one leader since '89 with an ounce of vision and he was really a WAL pilot with a tenure that was based on a different agenda (a good one) and too brief to do anything.


<<<Truth, you and your RJDC cronies are suing for 100's of millions hoping to strike gold, because you saw your attempt at an end-run fail--and your pissed.>>>


Your airline has had a remarkable influence and leadership role in ALPA for the last 20 years (as properly you should have). You've done a lot of good things to be sure, but on this particular issue you completely blew an opportunity to make history. This little RJ has had as much impact on our industry as the introduction of jets in the early 60's. It''s still not 10 years old and may well wind up having more impact over the long term because of our failure to see it for what it was and deal with it in a way that would protect us all, particularly the core, which is the mainline.

The fact is that the mainline carriers while trying to protect themselves from the RJ, have put us all into a precarious position that could well upset the apple cart.

The RJ is just another airplane. While you may want to take credit for its inception, invention, success, at the end of the day it's just another airplane. My solution? Delta outright sells ASA and Comair, contracts Skywest, Chautauqua, etc for some 50 seat work, and buys 50+ seat jets for the mainline to truly revolutionize the industry.

We will then give Comair and ASA what they want--a crack at the big jets with the big salaries. Of course, they will have no codeshare, so all bets are off. We will then see the true greatness of the Comair leadership--NOT.


Edited to remove the language which triggered the censor.

 

[Dude]

Life's not fair.......BooHoo

Sometimes I read this board and think, right on! But when it comes to people taking shots at one another over their job choice, please. I remember, not long ago, I was debating the move from corporate to the regionals. At 27, I said what the hell. The majors seem to want the 121 experience, so I decided to fly for a regional. (One of the forementioned)

Let us not forget that we all make our own choices and at the end of the day, have to live with it. Prior to 9-11, I wasn't concerned about my career path, but now have to live with the fact that I make 1/3rd the amount I was earning before jumping ship to gain 121 experience and may be here for a good while. Oh well, my choice to move on and no one elses. Now I have to sit and wait like the rest hoping $82.00/hr and a 70-seat jet isn't my only payoff after 15 years of service.

Here it is; put out your resumes, go to interviews, and jump through the hoops like everyone else did, then bitch a little. But please, If you haven't done the time, do not assume to be qualified to comment on the "greed" of other pilots. Point is at the days end, they are thinking about their families and wives, not putting bigger jets on your companie's certificate.

Just had to vent a little, I'm feeling much better now.

Happy trails

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FlyDeltasJets

Could you please post those RJ rates you are refering too, I'm just curious. Thanks

RJ,

I do not know them offhand, but I will attempt to get them for you. All I know is that we proposed rates (from a personal conversation with a member of my negotiating committee).

I'll try to get the rates as soon as I can, but that may not be public info.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Perhaps it is simplistic, but it is also accurate. If the mainline pilots had not tired to scope out all RJs, they would probably all be flying at the majors today. You gave management a free ride and they took it. Your argument is specious and I suspect you know that.

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?

 

[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.