Delta TA on SCOPE

[BigRed1]

Part 1

ALPA Council 1 Update, May 31, 2012

By now, most of you have had the opportunity to review the details of the TA. I think that now is a good time for me to explain my NO vote on the MEC and to give you my thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of the agreement.

I think we all were hopeful that this agreement would finally be a “wow” moment for all 12,000 pilots at Delta Air Lines after a decade of pay cuts and stagnant career progression. Unfortunately this is not the case. Management is smart. They do not need 12,000 yes votes, they only need 6,001.

Through the feedback that I have received from phone calls, e-mails, lounge visits, PUB events, LEC meetings, and personal conservations, it became pretty clear what the pilots of C1 were expecting from the first post-merger Section 6 negotiations—an industry-leading contract. This feedback also showed that payand scope were by far the most important issues for the pilots.

Pay
This is one of the easiest sections to evaluate with respect to the direction given to us by the C1 pilots. The direction was clearly that the Delta pilots expected to be the highest-paid in the industry. Not by year three or four, but immediately. While this TA does increase pay by 19.7 percent by 2015, in my opinion, it comes too late. Also consider that to achieve this increase, the lower-tier profit sharing was reduced by 33 percent (<$2.5B, the range from which we’ve received our profit sharing). This reduction in profit sharing equates to approximately 2.5 percent of pay, assuming profits near $2.5B. In reality, that 8.5 percent pay increase in 2013 is offset by the profit-sharing reduction for 2013 (paid in 2014), so that it’s actually more equivalent to a 6 percent pay increase. While I do agree that, in general, it is better to have pay in the form of pay rates than profit sharing, I would note that, for the term of this TA, it has been widely forecasted that the airline industry is poised for large profits. I would also suggest that in this case, taking money from profit sharing to add to pay rates is similar to taking money from your savings account and depositing it in your checking account. After the transaction is complete, you are no richer than when you started.

Other areas of compensation that were changed include:

• Increase in reserve guarantee (72-80 hrs) GOOD

• Increase in reserve maximum to ALV+15.
Increase in pay GOOD; potentially working every day on reserve BAD

• Average Daily Guarantee (4:30/day) GOOD

• CQ training (3:45/day) GOOD

• Distributed training pay from1 minute for 3, to 1 to 2 GOOD

• Vacation pay from 3:00 per day to 3:15 per day GOOD

• International pay increased to $6.50/Captains and $4.50/First Officers GOOD

• Per diem increased $.10 in 2013 and $.10 in 2014 GOOD

Scope
While the changes to scope are harder to quantify than pay, I do believe that there is an overall improvement in scope. I do not, however, believe it is a “home run” as others have stated. Block hours will transfer from the DCI carriers to the mainline under this agreement. I think we can all agree that the transfer of flying from DCI to mainline is a good thing. However, when we look at the scope section closely, it is not as rosy as some will have you believe. Note also that the pilot group did not receive any “negotiating credit” for the scope changes that the Company wanted.

Current RJ Limits

• Unlimited propeller-driven aircraft up to 70 seats

• Unlimited jet aircraft up to 50 seats

• 255 limit on 70/76-seat jet aircraft. Currently there are 102 70-seat jet aircraft and 153 76-seat aircraft. Total 255.

• 3 to 1 growth of 76-seat aircraft/mainline once there are 767 aircraft on the mainline, up to a maximum of 255 76-seat aircraft.

TA Limits

• Hard cap of 450 DCI aircraft (with a few limited exceptions). GOOD

• Hard cap of 125 50-seat aircraft. GOOD

• Hard cap of 102 70-seat aircraft EVEN

• Hard cap of 223 76-seat aircraft. (Must take delivery of all 88 B-717 aircraft.) BAD

While we have accomplished setting a “hard cap” on the DCI carriers’ fleets, we have allowed the company to outsource an additional 70 76-seat jets. Under the current PWA, the company could exchange 70-seat RJs for 76-seat RJs if the mainline fleet exceeded 767. While technically they could increase the number of 76-seat aircraft up to a limit of 255, this scenario is highly unlikely. I doubt the company could justify the additional expense of (in most cases) swapping to a 76-seat jet just to add 6 seats. The additional 76-seat RJs are equivalent to “two Compass Airlines.” The key point is that there will be 325 70/76-seat jets that will be outsourced under this agreement. I remember that when I got hired at Northwest, the number of DC-9s on the property (note that this was before the small RJs were born) totaled around 180 aircraft. In the ensuing 17 years, the numbers of RJs have increased by the hundreds, while mainline aircraft have dwindled. That is a hard pill to swallow. Also understand that the block-hour (BH) ratios in place between domestic mainline and DCI do not make a distinction between which DCI aircraft block hours would be pulled down if the Company fell out of compliance due to a domestic mainline BH reduction. This means that if DCI needs to reduce their block hours, the carriers (and Delta) could choose to further reduce 50-seat block hours and leave the 76-seat block hours untouched. In an extreme example that incorporated a significant domestic mainline BH reduction, it could be possible that the DCI flying would be comprised of only 76-seat RJs.
So, in an increasing BH environment, DCI can only add 76-seat RJs as 717s arrive at mainline. That’s positive. However, in a decreasing BH environment, the disincentive/penalty for the company isn’t as great, since they can return to compliance by reducing usage in the smaller, more inefficient aircraft that they want to ultimately “park” anyway. It’s more negative for the pilot group when potentially larger domestic mainline aircraft are reduced than the Company’s disincentive for doing so.

This high level of fleet flexibility that the Company receives from this agreement is one of the key reasons that expectations for this TA were so high.

Continued...

 

[BigRed1]

Part 2

Continued from Part 1 above...

The additional 717s added to fleet is a positive move for the Delta pilots. It is important to understand, though, that these additional aircraft do not necessarily mean additional jobs. Just as the transfer of block hours to the mainline is good for Delta pilots, I would not just assume that this translates into additional jobs. With the increase in the ALV/TLV, much, if not all, of the additional hours could be absorbed by the existing mainline pilot group.

MISCELLANEOUS

Increased Reserve Pay GOOD

Sick Leave GOOD

ALV Window Increased from 72-82 to 72-84
This is an important issue that I think sometimes gets overlooked. This increase reduces the number of pilots required by approximately 340. These jobs will be difficult to ever get back. While the surveys showed that pilots wanted to make more money, I don’t think most pilots meant that they wanted to work more.UGLY

Changed the Summer Bid Months to 30 Days
Again this reduces the number of pilots needed. While this change seems insignificant, I am always hesitant to make changes that reduce staffing. BAD

Early Retirement Program
While we were unable to get the medical premiums reduced for retired pilots, the company was interested in an Early Out program to address the pilot surplus due to the productivity increases. I believe this is good for the pilots who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity. I would not, however, anticipate much, if any, movement upward as a result of this program. The company will be selecting pilots in the surplus categories. Once these pilots leave, there is no guarantee that the positions that they left will be filled. In most cases, the positive result could be that pilots aren’t MD’d from overstaffed categories. For example, if there are 10 Early Outs from the 747-400, the company is not required to (and most likely will not) fill those positions with junior pilots. GOOD

ADG
Average Day Guarantee was added to the PWA. This is another form of Rig that pays a minimum of 4:30 per day, regardless of any duty period. This does not replace the current 5:15 duty period average but just adds another layer of protection for those trips that have more days than duty periods—rotations (22:00-02:00 exception) where there is a long layover and no duty period for a calendar day. It was not as much as we hoped for, but definitely a step in the right direction. GOOD

Duration
3½ years. GOOD

Conclusion
While I believe there are many good things in this agreement, it did not meet the direction of the C1 pilots. When the MEC was first notified about the possibility of engaging the company early, we were told that there was “value” that could be extracted from negotiating with the company early. We were originally told that this agreement would increase the number of jobs at the mainline. Remember the company approached usto start negotiations early because of an issue that they needed help with. If there was ever was a time to hit a “home run,” the time was now. Considering the number of gains achieved relative to the amount of “give” for the company, I do not see where we captured the “jobs” or “value,” even considering the time/value/money argument. Here is a quote from Mike Campbell, executive vice president–Human Resources and Labor Relations, shortly after the TA was reached.

“The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit-sharing changes,cover the investments in our employees.”

One of the pro-TA talking points is the argument that if this TA is rejected by the membership, it would automatically mean years of negotiations under the traditional Section 6. While that certainly is a possibility, I do not believe it is likely. Again, remember that the company came to us, to help them with their problem. That problem does not go away if the TA is rejected. This TA gives the company a lot of what they wanted (additional 76-seat RJs, increased pilot productivity). To just assume that the company would tear up the whole agreement and start from scratch is a bit of a stretch. The necessary risk assessment should not just include the potential of a standard lengthy Section 6 process, but also management’s much shorter-term needs and plans.
We are frequently told by many official and unofficial sources (both labor friendly and unfriendly) that it is highly unlikely and difficult that a large airline (much like the railroad industry after full consolidation) would ever be allowed to utilize “self-help” again. If this is true, then major contractual improvements will be dependent upon “opportunities” rather than old-style Section 6. Fine, but most “opportunities” come with some type of “pain” or risk, and they are obviously not “free.” This means that every “opportunity” must be exploited to the max and have its potential leverage fully realized. Maybe there will be more in the nearer term; maybe not, but I simply don’t believe that we got there in this case.

I was honored to represent the pilots of C1 during the debate at the MEC on the merits of this agreement. I truly believe that I carried out my responsibility to the C1 pilots when I voted NO to the TA. Now that the TA is in front of you, I urge everyone to be as educated as possible about what the TA means to you. It is now up to you to decide if it meets your threshold.

Fraternally,

Steve Mayer, Capt. Rep

 

[PCL_128]

PCL can be my eventual FO anytime!

Oh, how I wish we had that option, General!

 

[Dan Roman]

The problem I've got with the Steve Mayer letter is this.
As a rep you are part of a team, you should, by all means argue vigorously any point you want to make. You should take a strong stand in making that and than the MEC should vote. It's all done behind closed doors for a very good reason. The correct position is what the MAJORITY agree on. Not any one individual's position. That's how it's supposed to work, and when the MEC put's out a position, I think it's quite wrong for an individual to try and undermine what the majority have agreed on with his own personal take.
It's a committee, what they agree on should be the only thing that comes out, individuals trying to promote their own agenda against the will of the majority simply undermines the whole process.
Just a thought.

 

[Dan Roman]

Essentially, he lost out in the vote (TA got approved by the majority) and he wants to keep arguing his position.

 

[General Lee]

Can someone post the DL LAX council response? I think it was on another board. It had an opposite view of council 1. The vote was 14-5 in favor.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Abernathy]

A little melodrama sometimes does well to make a point.



Because the hypocrisy is so heavy that you might as well be beating everyone over the head with it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone outside the SWA "bubble" that a SWAPA pilot criticizing a legacy pilot group for not "holding the line" is just about the most absurd thing imaginable. Just over a decade ago, the Delta pilots were ratifying the most expensive pilot contract in history. Now, here you are so proud of your CBA when it isn't even a shadow of DAL Contract '01. The piloting profession has fallen quite far, and a big part of the reason is carriers like SWA and JetBlue (and yes, AirTran) who were paying their pilots far less than the legacy carriers were making. SWAPA made no attempt to follow the industry pattern. They were perfectly content making a fraction of what the Delta pilots were making. This wasn't 50 years ago, wave, this was a mere 11 years ago. This wasn't before our time. Both of us were in the industry at the time. You're well aware of it. It isn't news to you. So where is your criticism of SWAPA for failing to engage in pattern bargaining to advance the profession? Where is your criticism of SWAPA for being willing to undercut the legacy pilot groups? Until we see some of that criticism, then your criticism of DALPA is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.



The type? No, not really. That's small potatoes. It's still wrong, though, and SWAPA should at least make an effort to put a stop to it (many ALPA pilot groups used bargaining capital in the past to put an end to PFT schemes). But the overall issue of SWAPA's substandard contract prior to 2004? Yes, that's most certainly comparable to outsourcing in terms of damage done to the profession. The lower wages, the lack of a pension, and the work rules that allowed lower staffing levels all placed immense pressure on the legacy pilot groups in bankruptcy court. There wasn't a bankruptcy judge in the country who was going to allow the Delta, USAirways, United, Continental, or Northwest pilots to keep their pensions and pay rates while other mainline carriers were out there attracting hoards of pilots willing to do the job for nothing more than a 401k, 60% of the pay, and more block time. Can you honestly not see this?



Again, as I've said repeatedly, I don't disagree with you about the problems with outsourcing. I want it to end just as you do. My point is that your expectations of ending it abruptly are wildly unrealistic. The problem can be solved, but not the way you think it can. The DAL TA is the first step. The UAL/CAL TA will hopefully be the next step with further improvements. This is pattern bargaining. It takes time, and it's the only way we're going to get anywhere. Because I can assure you, management isn't going to agree to what you want them to agree to, and the NMB isn't going to force them. Therefore, you have zero leverage to accomplish your goal. What you advocate would be a recipe for the Delta pilots living under a bankruptcy era contract indefinitely. That's not a solution for outsourcing, that's just stubbornness and emotional thinking.

+5 or whatever number we're at on this.

Flippin' well articulated.

 

[SWA Bubba]

A little melodrama sometimes does well to make a point.



Because the hypocrisy is so heavy that you might as well be beating everyone over the head with it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone outside the SWA "bubble" that a SWAPA pilot criticizing a legacy pilot group for not "holding the line" is just about the most absurd thing imaginable. Just over a decade ago, the Delta pilots were ratifying the most expensive pilot contract in history. Now, here you are so proud of your CBA when it isn't even a shadow of DAL Contract '01. The piloting profession has fallen quite far, and a big part of the reason is carriers like SWA and JetBlue (and yes, AirTran) who were paying their pilots far less than the legacy carriers were making. SWAPA made no attempt to follow the industry pattern. They were perfectly content making a fraction of what the Delta pilots were making. This wasn't 50 years ago, wave, this was a mere 11 years ago. This wasn't before our time. Both of us were in the industry at the time. You're well aware of it. It isn't news to you. So where is your criticism of SWAPA for failing to engage in pattern bargaining to advance the profession? Where is your criticism of SWAPA for being willing to undercut the legacy pilot groups? Until we see some of that criticism, then your criticism of DALPA is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.



The type? No, not really. That's small potatoes. It's still wrong, though, and SWAPA should at least make an effort to put a stop to it (many ALPA pilot groups used bargaining capital in the past to put an end to PFT schemes). But the overall issue of SWAPA's substandard contract prior to 2004? Yes, that's most certainly comparable to outsourcing in terms of damage done to the profession. The lower wages, the lack of a pension, and the work rules that allowed lower staffing levels all placed immense pressure on the legacy pilot groups in bankruptcy court. There wasn't a bankruptcy judge in the country who was going to allow the Delta, USAirways, United, Continental, or Northwest pilots to keep their pensions and pay rates while other mainline carriers were out there attracting hoards of pilots willing to do the job for nothing more than a 401k, 60% of the pay, and more block time. Can you honestly not see this?

Hey, PCL,

I'd like to take a crack at this (at least the SWA part of your argument). I don't know what you expect from a brand new company as far as "holding the line,' but you bagging on Southwest is the same as you bagging on any other airline when they begin operations. Maybe in the beginning, those pilots couldn't get hired by anyone else so they started with Southwest. In fact all of our original pilots came from a small company that went belly-up (Purdue). It seems unrealistic that you'd expect any such foundling company's pilots could make that magic legacy threshhold. Was our contract poor when we started? Of course it was; we were a brand new company trying to survive. However, we always (albeit slowly) made it better. We weren't content with less pay (as you claimed), it just took us time and hard work to get where we are today. What you DID see with Southwest, was a group of pilots who made continuous, steady progress with each contract, always upward, until we had the industry-leading contract. Most importantly, never in that time did our pilot group sell out its juniors for a few bucks. (in fact once, when we small and lost a few planes, the group even spread the flying a little thinner to keep the company from having to furlough anyone. Who else has done that?) Never in that time did our pilot group give its flying away (alter-ego, RJs, etc) for a few bucks. So I really don't need to hear from you on ALPA's integrity in negotiating/protecting its pilots or the profession vs. SWAPA's efforts.

Also, as far as flying more block hours, do you not realize the problem with your argument? Making the company pay you more and more for less and less work is, without question, an ultimately losing proposition. Eventually, the company runs out of money and the pilot-screwing begins, starting with the guys on the bottom. At Southwest, we actually try to work with the company instead of against them. In the long run, it's better for the pilots. If we want more money, we fly more. It just that simple. The company doesn't have to pay more pilots to sit around playing with themselves, and can pay us more instead.

When I started, I remember lobbying at SAN one morning, and two Delta guys got off the van after we got on, and waited for the guy to come back and get them, because their contract required them to have a private van ride. The driver told me that Delta paid an extra $2.50/room-night over the normal crew rate for that pilot privilege. How stupid is that? Is some ALPA negotiations guy just sitting around trying to think of things they can make the company waste money on? And I'm sure you know that all the "we want the other guys contract +1%" gamesmanship (DAL's 2001 contract, for example) isn't ultimately sustainable. I suppose if you count on the cycles and being furloughed a time or two in your career, that's okay, but at Southwest, we work to make sure that doesn't happen. We're just steady upward progress.

You know, I'm not saying that there aren't things that ALPA leads the industry in, because certainly there are; I'm saying that taking care of all of its members ISN'T necessarily one of those things.

Bubba

 

[xjhawk]

I just wonder if (when-just my opinion) this thing gets passed, what it will do to the United negotiations? Or will it effect the American bankruptcy judge's decision on what that management is asking for scope relief. If we are all lucky, the judge will limit the scope at American to the same level. What will the time line be for the reduction of the 200's? I just hope to get a mainline or National job (let the hiring begin) before my expected downgrade or furlough from Pinnacle. On a side note, I am not a one to want a career at any regional.

 

[General Lee]

I just wonder if (when-just my opinion) this thing gets passed, what it will do to the United negotiations? Or will it effect the American bankruptcy judge's decision on what that management is asking for scope relief. If we are all lucky, the judge will limit the scope at American to the same level. What will the time line be for the reduction of the 200's? I just hope to get a mainline or National job (let the hiring begin) before my expected downgrade or furlough from Pinnacle. On a side note, I am not a one to want a career at any regional.

It probably will affect the UAL and US/AA negotiations, but none of them have helped our process either. No help at all. It is what it is. You can hope or demand a lot higher pay and you may think you have leverage, but that may just be wishful thinking.

AA scope will probably look a lot like the others, more 70 or 76 seaters allowed to cover for money losing 50 seaters. AA Eagle also has a lot of 37 seat E135s, which really must be money losers with high fuel prices. Those will probably be swapped for 70 or 76 seaters.

I think the 50 seaters at DCI will go away quickly if the TA passes. But, the 88 717s will arrive within 3 years, there are more MD90s coming, and other plans that could add to hiring that we might not know about. If you have PIC jet and are at a DCI ALPA carrier, I think you'll have a good shot at an interview with DL if you want it.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[waveflyer]

PCL-

Are you stupid?

That's a serious question. Are you really, really dumb?

6 airlines I've worked at. I've had my beliefs about scope well before I got to my mainline legacy - certainly well before my furlough, and much sooner than I found myself in an RJ to get current-

So if it's hypocritical for a former legacy pilot to critique the dalpa TA JUST bc where I eventually landed requires a type rating in the 737, how much more hypocritical is it for a much less experienced pilot to berate me for pft when he came up through Gulfstream???

You really want to get personal on that subject?

I am not a representative of swa. THIS particular subject has Nothing at all to do with swa. I am speaking from my experience as a commuter, mainline, furloughed, and regional pilot. I think that is valid enough experience to justify my opinion without having to throw in the distraction of SWA hating. Especially when you've never held a top tier job in your life. At every step, i was hired at one of the best paying jobs in that category. You, however, have worked at Gulfstream, PCL, AT. You paid Gulfstream over $25,000 to build right seat 1900 time. Got a job at pinnacle at a time when much better paying RJ jobs were out there, and AT is a growing company that never paid top wages and mgmt was constantly screwing with you. Every critique you have of me, you've done worse. So just stop with that line. It's nothing but crap.

What's even more stupid is you keep arguing that I want ALL outsourcing to go away with the next delta contract. That certainly would be unrealistic, and that's never an argument I've made.

YOU JUST MADE THAT UP.

I NEVER MENTION SWA OR COMPARE THEIR TA WITH OUR SITUATION- YET YOU SLAM ME FOR THAT AS IF NO PILOT WHO CURRENTLY WORKS AT SWA CAN HAVE AN OPINION STEMMING FROM HIS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AT MAINLINE- BUT YOU'RE EXPERIENCE AS A GULFSTREAM, PCL, AND AIR TRAN PILOT GIVES YOU CREDIBILITY???

THEN YOU REFUSE TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT THAT IM ACTUALLY MAKING ABOUT THIS TA-AND SPREAD ANOTHER LIE THAT I BELIEVE ALL DELTA PILOTS ARE SELLOUTS IF THEY DON'T TAKE BACK ALL THEIR RJ FLYING TOMORROW- I'VE NEVER SAID THAT- and worse, I know you're not actually dumb, and YOU KNOW I'VE NEVER SAID THAT- You're just scheming to find any way to discredit my opinion on this subject.

REPRESENT ME CORRECTLY OR DON'T QUOTE ME.


WHAT IM SAYING VERY VALIDLY, IS THAT NO NETWORK LEGACY HAS ALLOWED THE OUTSOURCING OF -900's OUTSIDE OF BANKRUPTCY OR ACQUISITION- IOW: UNDER DURESS-
DALPA trading 50 seaters for 90 seaterfiend outsourcing them while outside of bankruptcy will be the first time any of the big 3 network legacies has done that.

SIMPLY PUT, OUTSOURCING -900's IS NOT INDUSTRY STANDARD TODAY.

IF DALPA SIGNS THIS CONTRACT- then -900's WILL BE INDUSTRY STANDARD FROM THIS POINT ON.

But keep up your full court press PCL if you believe it's the right way to go, but tell the truth about my position when you do it.


For everyone who has +1, +2, +3, +9'd his post- try and remember who you're giving the thumbs up to. A pft guy who has always taken the easiest, quickest paths up the chain- follow that if you like.

BOTTOM LINE-
There's no reason those NEW -900's can't be flown at mainline, by mainline pilots. None. (notice i didnt say all RJs, or even all -900's working the delta system- but the new ones should be yours.
If you choose to outsource them, why is that not critique-worthy? , it's further proof, in a long history, that you don't understand the negatives of outsourcing and you are what I've been saying for years: CLASS I SELLOUTS.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

When I started, I remember lobbying at SAN one morning, and two Delta guys got off the van after we got on, and waited for the guy to come back and get them, because their contract required them to have a private van ride. The driver told me that Delta paid an extra $2.50/room-night over the normal crew rate for that pilot privilege. How stupid is that? Is some ALPA negotiations guy just sitting around trying to think of things they can make the company waste money on? And I'm sure you know that all the "we want the other guys contract +1%" gamesmanship (DAL's 2001 contract, for example) isn't ultimately sustainable. I suppose if you count on the cycles and being furloughed a time or two in your career, that's okay, but at Southwest, we work to make sure that doesn't happen. We're just steady upward progress.



Bubba

Point taken Bubba.....but why is your example a BAD thing? Until you lived it...it's easy to throw rocks at it. Next thing you are going to tell me is that the next startup or SWA will start taking the public bus because you think "it's stupid" to have a crew transport?

Seriously....no dig here....where does the toilet stop flushing?

 

[captain caveman]

BOTTOM LINE-
There's no reason those NEW -900's can't be flown at mainline, by mainline pilots. None. (notice i didnt say all RJs, or even all -900's working the delta system- but the new ones should be yours.
If you choose to outsource them, why is that not critique-worthy? , it's further proof, in a long history, that you don't understand the negatives of outsourcing and you are what I've been saying for years: CLASS I SELLOUTS.

There are a lot of Delta people who are thinking the same way. The DPA now has 5/6 the required cards for a vote.

Also, few people seem to mention the value that in-sourcing gives our company. Instead of being restricted to 76 seats, the company could trade 50s for crj1000s or C-series in any seat combination. Sure it will cost the company more, but the company will save with lower seat mile costs and increased flexibility.

 

[PCL_128]

Are you stupid?

That's a serious question. Are you really, really dumb?

No. Next question!

So if it's hypocritical for a former legacy pilot to critique the dalpa TA JUST bc where I eventually landed requires a type rating in the 737

No, I didn't say that. Go back and read again. I think it's hypocritical for you to attack DALPA while absolutely refusing to criticize SWAPA or SWA under any circumstances for things that are also harmful for the profession. If you would openly criticize those things (737 type, substandard CBA until 2004, no DC plan still, etc.), then I wouldn't find it hypocritical for you to criticize DALPA at all. I would still disagree with your analysis on the scope issue, but at least it wouldn't be hypocrisy.

You really want to get personal on that subject?

I haven't gotten personal, wave. You've gotten defensive on the 737 type thing all on your own. Go back and read my posts again. I never once criticized you for buying a 737 type. I have no idea how you got your 737 type. My criticism was all related to the fact that you don't criticize SWA's policy to require the type, not that you had one to get a job there. I just want you to be intellectually honest and not attack DALPA without also looking internally at SWA and admitting that a lot of the fall of this profession over the past decade can be attributed to legacy pilots having to compete with pilots making far less at the LCCs.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

There are a lot of Delta people who are thinking the same way. The DPA now has 5/6 the required cards for a vote.

Also, few people seem to mention the value that in-sourcing gives our company. Instead of being restricted to 76 seats, the company could trade 50s for crj1000s or C-series in any seat combination. Sure it will cost the company more, but the company will save with lower seat mile costs and increased flexibility.

Both of the above paragraphs are pure BS....

Prove it caveman......oh that's right, you can't.....crj1000s....that's rich!