Delta Pilot Deal Allows Huge Increase In 70-Seat Flying

[General Lee]

bvt1151,


I can't wait until you guys break free and try to become the next Independance Air. They have proven how successful an almost all RJ airline can be, especially in this low fare environment. Go for it! Maybe you too can have A319s someday also.......



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[N813CA]

General Lee, FDJ2

You are right. It is better than we had. Before this TA Delta could give 50% of its flying to CHA and SKW. At least we know now we have %25 between ASA and Comair. I personally can't complain. It at least means we will be there. A lot of these guys responding are from before Delta bought Comair, I am guessing. I wish those days were still here, but they are not. Now we must look at this at a different angle. I think this is better than nothing. Just my 2 cents.

 

[exm3585]

I think what is showing more than anything is dissapointment.


A lot of ALPA pilots have been whipsawed. Job security for the regional pilots is non existent. I know the mainline pilots are suffering a loss of job security too. At least the mainline pilots are able to negotiate with some one about it. I know it comes with the territory to some extent.

D.W. talked about this and talked of brand scope. A lot of negative things were said about brand scope but I think in the back of our minds, we were hoping. Hoping it would allow us W.O.'s some job security and stop the whip saw. The DMEC did try I was told, and mgt. flat said no. You would not expect them to drop it all and go to BK because of our job security.

That just shows, from mgt.'s perspective, how smart they are. Face it, we are in this position and will have to learn to deal. Now real soon, we will have to decide if we want to negotiate for more 70 seat aircraft. We will have to decide if we want them or not. We have lost the scope battle. We have a lot of junior pilots that want what we all want. Advancement.
I have been dead set against giving a dime up for growth, but I just don't know any more.

 

[bvt1151]

bvt1151,


I can't wait until you guys break free and try to become the next Independance Air. They have proven how successful an almost all RJ airline can be, especially in this low fare environment. Go for it! Maybe you too can have A319s someday also.......

General, you make too many assumptions to hold any valid arguments. By Delta spinning us off, we'd be open to enter into regional agreements with other carriers. Its called diversification. A simple, and effective business term that in no way involves A319's, or Independene Air. Don't automatically assume that every Comair pilot will sell out their young for larger aircraft. In fact thats what this whole argument is about. Comair pilots are desperately trying to protect their young, and the DALPA can't quite understand what that means.

 

[MedFlyer]

While I have been critical of the DL pilots in the past year, in terms of the 70 seat/RJ flying issue, I think they did the best they could. DALPA had little bargaining power during these negotiations and tried to create some protection for CMR/ASA. It's far from perfect, but what choices did they have.

Do you really expect DALPA to force DL into BK over this issue? That would be ridiculous.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The RJDC's review of LOA 46 is being published. They did review the current block hours, as well as the effects of the changes in the Delta PWA. Look for their "counterpoints" to hit the internet within the next 48 hours, or so.

If you review past RJDC publications, they have been very accurate at forecasting industry trends. Usually it takes about six months for the "common knowledge" to catch up with what Dan Ford and his crew figured out with long hours of analysis and statistics. Very candidly the RJDC can get ahead of me too.

It is an eye opener. I don't think LOA 46 will go down in history as the step in the right direction that all of us were hoping for. I also now fully understand why the ASA and Comair MEC's were not given the text of the LOA until weeks after the fact.

I'm sure that it will be its own thread and will instantly be dennounced by those who lack the capacity for independent thought. But rather than instantly reacting, the Delta guys should consider the implications. What does this mean for the Delta pilots? The furloughees, and the profession?

ALPA has not changed direction. It appears the leaders of our union have only utilized the lack of situational awareness to sneak in another attack on the representational rights of ALPA's members at the DCI level. What is most troubling is that ALPA has use our hopes for a brand scope solution as a Trojan Horse to facilitate the attack.

~~~^~~~

 

[surplus1]

I don't want any credit, nor do I want any blame. Just don't try to paint it as something it is not.

I understand that Michael and I haven't tried "to paint it as something it is not." It is your peers that have been doing that, I merely objected. I haven't tried to blame you nor will I give you credit where none is due.

Frankly, it really changes nothing. So you do more than 25% now, big deal. This does not change that and you know it. It is not a bad deal for you guys, and I understand it is also not a good deal. But don't go around implying that this was done to screw you guys.

First of all I did not say nor did I imply that it was done to "screw" us, that's your perception. You were already much too screwed by other events to spend any time plotting against us. Again, I did not blame DAL pilots for anything, other than your own implications that you did something for our benefit.

You are not correct, it changes many things and will significantly increase the concessionary pressures on both ASA and CMR. Therefore, contrary to the claims of your peers, you have not "given us scope". ALPA has merely given us a bigger mess than we had before.

As I said, the Delta pilots have no obligation to protect the interests of ASA and CMR pilots; I don't falult you for that. However, do not claim that you have "given" us anything, and yes, several of you did. I'm sorry if it upsets you that I challenge that claim but guess what, it upsets me that you make it. So I guess we're even.

I did not imply that you did it to screw us and I don't think you did. In fact I think you (DMEC) had little to do with it. I rather think your negotiators made some sort of proposal (I don't know what), the Company rejected it and told you what they would have. You really had little choice but to accept whatever they wanted, given the bigger fish you had to fry.

This issue of 70-seat jets should have been resolved long ago and should not have been "on the table" during concessionary bargaining. That it was on the table when you had no leverage is ALPA's fault. If you support ALPA's ideas in this respect, then you share ALPA's responsibility.

Part of the reason we have difficulties about this sort of thing (as I see it) is because the Delta pilots seem to believe (the evidence supports it) that you have the right to negotiate our future. The fact is you do not.

That idea is not something that the Delta pilots invented, it is ALPA policy, but you often appear to embrace it. Well, ALPA policy is not only wrong, it violates the law. As I said above, you (the Delta pilots) have no responsibility to protect my interests. However, the ALPA does have that responsibility. Whether you think so or whether you don't, the fact remains that what you call "DALPA" can make no agreement without the consent of the ALPA, Int'l. Your TA is an agreement between the Air Line Pilots Association and Delta Air Lines and ALPA (Int'l.) is the entity that is responsible for its content. Like it or not, the scope content of this agreement is not favorable to ASA and CMR and should not be claimed to be. By the way, it is not favorable to Delta pilots or to ALPA either. This is not a win/win scenario. It's a clear win/lose, and the Company won hands down.

This TA does not facilitate outsourcing. It still allows it, for sure, but there are limits on it. Like it or not, want it or not, with this deal you will always fly AT LEAST 25% of the Delta block hours. Can you tell me how that is a bad thing?

Sorry, I do not agree with you. I think it not only facilitates further outsourcing it encourages it. It also encourages more whipsaw between ASA and Comair. Try to set aside your animosity long enough to look at this objectively. This is not and should not become an argument of DAL pilots vs ASA and CMR pilots. It's a discussion of the benefits (with respect only to Scope) of this TA with regard to all of us. It's not just about you, nor is it just about us.

Let's say for convenience that there is 2,000,000 hours of system flying. Mainline does 1,000,000 and DCI will do 1,000,000. At present, let's say that ASA/CMR now do 36% of that 2,000,000 = 720,000, and the others do the remaining 14% = 280,000. Now let's guarantee ASA/CMR 25% of system (instead of the current 36%) = 500,000 or a potential loss of 220,000. Now let's make another assumption = ASA/CMR operate 57 CRJ-700 and each one has an average daily utilization of 9.5 hrs = 197,647.5. If I were the Company, that tells me that I could transfer ALL 57 CRJ7's to an outside agency, where they would be flown for much less cost to me, and still remain above the 25% floor. I could also place ALL (125-57) 68 of my "new" 70-seaters at current or new outside agencies, at lower cost, and remain within contractual limits (25% of system) since total system flying will increase by at least their utilization. So, I can let ASA/CMR do the 50-seat flying and farm out all the 70-seat flying to CHQ and SKYW and save lots of money. Granted, I don't have to do that, but I now have a knife that I can hold at the throats of ASA/CMR and I don't have to worry about any fuss from their union, which has already agreed. Those numbers are not in stone (obviously) but they are not in left field either. Maybe you can follow the logic without marrying the numbers. And you would like us to see this as a "good" agreement for ASA/CMR? If an idiot like me can figure that out, you don't think the Company did?

When ALPA makes an agreement that guarantees a percentage of flying that is less than the flying already being done (by any of its members), that encourages a reduction in the current flying to the level of the new minimum percentage. That's just common sense. This is especially true when it is already known that the flying can be done by non-ALPA carriers for less money. That's not rocket science.

When ALPA makes an agreement that specifies a percentage of flying for two airlines, but does NOT specify how that flying will be allocated between them, that encourages the Company to play the two airlines (ASA & CMR) against each other. Comair will now have to "bid" to keep ASA from getting the whole 25% and ASA will have to do the same. Yes, the Company could do that before but now they have "approval" from ALPA in writing. I would not call that a benefit. It is in fact a sanction of a bad situation.

When ALPA makes an agreement that "permits" the addition of new equipment to the fleet, which would obviously exceed the 25% floor that is newly created for ASA and CMR, and does nothing to ensure where that new flying will go, it obviously facilitates and encourages the Company to place that fying with carriers whose contracts are inferior to current ALPA contracts and whose pilots are not members of the ALPA. If that is not encouraging "outsourcing", what is?

I fail to see how that benefits Delta pilots (who more than doubled the size of the 70-seat fleet) or ASA and CMR pilots who will either have to watch the new equipment go to CHQ and SKYW or give up their contracts in an effort to keep it on the property. What part of that do you see as "good" for any of us?

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Obviously, the ALPA is not ignorant of the fact that the Comair PWA is superior to the working agreements of CHQ and SKYW, particularly with respect to book rates for 70-seat jets, as well as many other provisions. Obviously, the ALPA is not ignorant of the fact that ASA has been trying to improve its PWA for two years or that the current ASA PWA is in many respects superior to the agreements at CHQ and SKYW, and much better than agreements at carriers like MES and TSA. Therefore, When ALPA makes an agreement that permits addition of new equipment, but does NOT protect the equipment of the same type currently flown by two ALPA carriers and, at the same time establishes a floor that is BELOW the current level of flying, that not only facilitates and encourages that the new equipment will be placed at the non-ALPA carriers, it virtually guarantees it.

Additionally, it facilitates and encourages the Company to put new and increased concessionary pressure on the contracts of both ASA and CMR as they are forced to "bid" for the new equipment or lose it. ALPA complains about having to make concessions, but simultaneously creates situations that make concessions more likely. Does that really make sense to you?

The Delta pilots should not be expected to "fall on their swords" in defense of the ASA and CMR contracts and I (for one) would not ask or desire that. That is unfair to the Delta pilots. You should not have to negotiate on our behalf, in fact you should not be allowed (by ALPA) to do so. However, ALPA policy has prevented us (ASA and CMR) from negotiating with Delta in our own behalf, saddles you with the burden, and then fails to do anything sensible about it.

The culprit is ALPA's policy, the warped philosophy that "the mainline(s)" should control the destiny of the regional(s) as opposed to reasonable agreements mutually negotiated between mainline and regional groups in the service of the same corporate entity. ALPA's misapplication of Scope has in fact resulted in the defacto loss of Scope for both the mainline groups and the regional groups. It is a masterpiece of incompetence, and that's generous. If you support that policy then you are just as culpable as the ALPA itself.

Were it not for the obstinancy of ALPA's policies these issues could have been resolved favorably for DAL, ASA and CMR pilots, as well as the Company, long before we got to the concessionary mode. Instead, the ridiculous policies put the issue into the environment of concessionary bargaining and the consequence is that there will be much more 70-seat flying (which you didn't want), all of which will now either go to non-ALPA carriers or decimate existing ALPA contracts (which we don't want). That's brilliant?

Your TA and the recent NWA TA are both examples that ALPA has learned nothing from the debacle it created at USAirways [do you really believe that U pilots benefited from the creation of MDA?] and is determined to pursue its misguided policies regardless of who gets hurt (in this case both you and us). Meanwhile the only beneficiaries of this failed policy are pilot groups that are not represented by the ALPA, and of course the Company. ALPA's performance would lead you to suspect that "dues" are being paid by management and not by pilots.

I don't "hate ALPA" at all but I despise stupidity. The current administration of the ALPA (which produces ALPA's policies) is a disaster; a cancer that has been festering for a decade. If something isn't done to correct it and change course, it will not survive in its current format.

It's too bad that mainline pilots apparently would rather fight with regional pilots than join with them in setting OUR union straight.

 

[michael707767]

Let's say for convenience that there is 2,000,000 hours of system flying. Mainline does 1,000,000 and DCI will do 1,000,000. At present, let's say that ASA/CMR now do 36% of that 2,000,000 = 720,000, and the others do the remaining 14% = 280,000. Now let's guarantee ASA/CMR 25% of system (instead of the current 36%) = 500,000 or a potential loss of 220,000. Now let's make another assumption = ASA/CMR operate 57 CRJ-700 and each one has an average daily utilization of 9.5 hrs = 197,647.5. If I were the Company, that tells me that I could transfer ALL 57 CRJ7's to an outside agency, where they would be flown for much less cost to me, and still remain above the 25% floor. QUOTE]




Lets say I agree with everything you say. (I don't but for the sake of argument) Ok, I understand that the floor is below what you currently fly. But, before there was a floor at all, what protection did you have? The answer is none. They could have transferred all of your 70 seaters and some or all of the 50 seaters. I admit, this protection is not perfect, far from it. You have to do 25% of DAL flying. What did you have before? I am not trying to say that this is the greatest scope in the world, but compared to what you had before, it is a step in the right direction. Are you so jaded you cannot see that?

Given the leverage we had (none) I am surprised they got even a 25% floor for the wholly owneds. But again, if you don't like it, if you think you were better off without it, get both your MECs to pass resolutions saying you would like it removed. I am sure the Delta MEC and certainly Delta management would be more than happy to comply.

 

[737 Pylt]

Comair pilots are desperately trying to protect their young, and the DALPA can't quite understand what that means.

Unless you are speaking from experience, you should check your facts!
DALPA had its back against the wall. Yes the no furlough clause is gone, but can you name me one carrier that still has one?? They re-negotiated a 30 day to a 90 day notice. Not what anyone wanted, but still better than other carriers. We have taken care of the furloughs via COBRA/Secret Santa and even stock options for furloughees upon their return. I know its not much, but before you go spouting about DALPA not protecting their you, you might want to check your facts! This was a major sh1t sandwich, and everyone on board took a bite! My guess, for what its worth, (which in reality is nothing) is that they will be coming after the commuters next to make them more competitive!
737