General,
A lot of your observations (in this post) are pretty much in line with what's happening. One place you go astray is your attempt to link the RJDC with declining compensation packages; that is not an RJDC issue. Hegemony is the issue.
I know that your MEC will do the best it can to keep your contract as intact as it can including, but not limited to, pay rates. I have no problem with that and we will do the same.
As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, the EMB-190 is certified at 106 seats and the EMB-195 at 118 seats max. That puts it in the "its yours" category. Therefore, with respect to JBlue's new rates it is you that has to be more worried than we.
Basically the JBlue debacle leaves you with two options 1) lower your rates and contract terms to match JB or 2) open your scope clause and give away the 100-seat category. Both of those options suck big time.
The seventy-seat segment more directly affects us, but the equation is little different. We have to deal with ALPA' USAir low-ball EMB-170 rate, which is no less onerous to us (and other reginals) than the JBlue deal is to you. We also have to watch what NW does with respect to their effort to capture the 70-seaters their company wants. If ALPA past practice is any indicator, the will copy the U deal or somethng similar.
In fairness to JBlue management it could be said that all they have done is jump on ALPA's lead of rushing hell bent to win the race to the bottom. Why a so-called labor union would do what ALPA has done leaves many to wonder as to the sanity of its leaders.
Once again, if your designs include attempts to place the 70-seat equipment at your airline (copying NW) you will have the same two options 1) lower your rates and contract terms to match USAirways or 2) open your scope clause and restore our unlimited access to this size aircraft.
With respect to the RJDC, I suspect that what you do with the EMB-190/195 categoty is of no concern. On the other hand what you attempt to do with the 70-seat category is of great concern. We are not blind to the ways of ALPA.
In my previous post, what I suggested was that it might be in your best interest to stay away from the "we want it" syndrome in the 70-seat category and give up on ideas like J4J. I still hold that opinion.
Regardless, there is no doubt that we will be impacted by these low ball rates and so will you. If you were smart, it is my opinion that this common impact should give you the motivation to end the dispute between us and produce a mutually agreed accommodation. To date I have not seen or heard anything indicating that your group shares this view. Instead you are still pounding your chests in the belief that you can do as you please with impunity. There's not too much time left for you to make a positive decision.
It appears much more practical that we confront this "problem" with a common interest as opposed to a continuation of fighting the war on two fronts. In the past your group hasn't been able to grasp that reality or if you have, has been unwilling to act. I'm just hoping out loud that the now common dilemma that we both face will give you a wake up call. As I've tried to point out previously, you really have a lot more to lose. Now that your own contract is in clear danger of vanishing even more completely than ours, perhaps you will see more light.
You already have the "union" on your side and working against us. We are fighting that and each time ALPA and you make another predatory overture our chances of winning get better. Plam B may be worth considering.
Management has been nuetral in the dispute so far. However, they are no longer "neutral" with respect to your negative impact on the cost structure. Depending on what you do now, you might well put them in our camp, rather solidly. While we don't want that to happen, I have to remind you that "self preservation is nature's first law." More directly, we simply can't allow you to do things that would, for practical purposes, put us out of business. You must come to the realization that our job security is just as important to us as yours is to you. We aren't asking you to take the hit for us. By the same token, don't expect us to take the hit for you. Each of us needs a better way to secure what is respectively "ours".
In my simple mind that means we are better off working as one than we are as three. We've been preaching that for four years now. Maybe it's time you listen. Candidly, bankrupt Air Canada is not an airline I would seek to emulate if I were you. In terms of structure, Jet Blue might be a better model. They may be dragging down pay rates excessively but at least they have as yet made no attempt to create competing groups and conflicts of interest within their own airline. You have, and seem determined to continue doing even more.
If letters to Needleman are in order they would better come from the Delta MEC than the RJDC. The RJDC has not claimed that the EMB-190/195 is a "regional" airplane. You have claimed that it is a "mainline" airplane, therefore it is your rates that JB is low-balling, not ours. You need to defend your own turf far more than we do.
ALPA, on the other hand is the principle cause of low-balling our compensation package. We are already telling ALPA what we think and they will undoubtedly hear far more before they hear less.
The RJDC is not trying to be a road bump in your negotiations. As long as you don't negotiate on our behalf (which you have already done) and use us as a bargaining chip, it is none of our business what you do. When you cross that line we will do what we can to stop you, any way that we can.
Yes, I know that you still have 1020 on the street and would like to see them accommodated in some practical way. Unfortunately it looks like what you may have to do will increase that number rather than reduce it. I do hope that can be avoided and I'm sure you will do your best. As long as what you do does not come at our expense, I think we are more than willing to assist you in finding a slot for them. I'm sure you understand that we can't hire your pilots unless we are growing and we can't grow because you are artificially preventing it. When you remove that artificial restraint there is no reason we should not help you and I am confident we would. You just can't put the cart before the horse.
I agree that the only "new" airframes that come in the short term will be in the 70 - 110 seat range. What we do together will decide where the company elects to allocate them. We are much more likely to find a mutually satisfactory placement of those aircraft when you decide to end your intransigence.
This is a real crisis and everyone in the Delta System will ultimately be affected by it. It is a time for equitable solutions to our problems, not a time for more chest thumping. We need to shake hands and move forward. You might consider that your ability to take what you want is somewhat diminished, whereas our ability to defend what is ours may have increased. Togetherness, is bliss.
Mutual adversity opens the door to opportunity. All is not lost, unless you choose to make it so (again).
Regards.
General Lee said:
Surplus1,
I can understand that you guys are worried, and Jetblue's new rates have just undercut your 70 seat rates, and that WILL have an eventual effect on your current and future wages. That cannot be denied. I know you are not "threatening me" with your tough talk, but I don't think Dalpa (or our MEC) really cares about the RJDC and their knack for trying to be a road bump in our future negotiations. As far as negotiating for future aircraft--yes, they can negotiate for anything NEW--and another Alpa airline has RJs the same size as their regional---Air Canada and Jazz. I don't know if they intend to go after your 70 seaters or any 70 seater, but thanks to the new Jetblue rates, the ability for ALPA to ask for new aircraft at rates lower than your 70 seat rates has become "competitive." Many on this board said, "you guys will never go for 70 seaters because the rates are too low for you rich Delta pilots...." Now, thanks to the Jetblue rates, even future 100 seaters will be attached to lower rates----and your 70 seaters will be even lower to stay "competitive" and Dalpa may just have to bite. Why don't you ask the RJDC to send Neeleman a mean letter too, maybe that will persuade him to change his mind? This whole thing $tinks, but we still have 1020 guys out and things (pay scales) are changing fast around here. Dalpa (our MEC) will do what they have to do to try to keep wages as high as they can be these days, and try to protect jobs. The only new planes I see possibly coming in the near term are 100 and 70 seaters--after huge pay cuts.
Bye Bye--General Lee
Contrary to what the targeted poster stated, DALPA does not negotiate for other employee groups. Again, mis-information being passed off as fact.
