Q? for DL Pilots

[General Lee]

ACAFA,

Look, I don't wish a furlough on anyone, and I am a major advocate for our furloughed pilots and other airlines' too. But, we have had an unfortunate job shift here at Delta and DCI. We are down 3000 total pilots at Delta (1060 are on furlough), but DCI has grown by more than 1000. Now it is apparent that the RJ strategy of "frequency is number 1" is wrong for Delta----and even ACA is trying to get into the game with larger planes at Indy. If you cannot see that helping another airline as they lower fares and fight against you directly with larger aircraft is counter productive, then you can't see the big picture. We don't want to fund another airline's success against us. The only other airline that has experience with the Dornier jets is Skyway---and they seem to want the growth and will do it for less. I don't make the decisions here---and management wants lower costs from all of us. Dalpa has set up rules that protect us---so it really doesn't make sense to fund a direct competitor. Sorry.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Now it is apparent that the RJ strategy of "frequency is number 1" is wrong for Delta----

Where does this come from? How is it that DCI is still placing aircraft orders when RJ's are now "wrong"? I would rather see that growth at mainline, like in the A318/319 range, but why spend 1/2 a billion dollars on crJ's if that's not the "right" aircraft???

 

[bvt1151]

I'm still confused, and General or FDJ haven't answered any of Surplus's questions.

After you finish those, perhaps you could answer mine:

Why are the Delta pilots enforcing the scope clause at only certain DCI carriers, specifically the carriers represented by ALPA (CMR, ASA, ACA) yet providing excuses for airlines not represented by ALPA (SKYW, CHQ)?

I don't believe that you are simply content by sitting back and saying, "well, they got us with a loophole."

Or are you?

 

[P38JLightning]

really?

Dalpa has set up rules that protect us---so it really doesn't make sense to fund a direct competitor. Sorry.

Bye Bye--General Lee


But its OK to fund Midwest Express?

Oh that's right, they promised not to use the Delta money over on the "Midwest side". Sure. I'm positive that as financialy strapped MidEx yearns for cash (so they can lower fares even more) not one dollar of that fee for departure gravy will make its way over to the "parent company" right?

By the way how is it that MidEx/Skyway will even be allowed (per the DALPA PWA) to do this feed? The "seperate certificate trick" as we ALL know (well okay, as MOST of us know) does not work, so the Delta pilots will either have to waive their scope in this case, or fail to file a grievance in the first place.

Of course its all a moot point, since Duane Woerth will put the thumbscrews to the DALPA boys and prevent the introduction of another outsource subcontractor, just like he PROMISED us he would. And he believes so strongly in "brand scope" he will make it happen.

Right?

 

[michael707767]

I don't know the answer to the original question, but I will call the union and find out. Could be as simple as Republic does not operate any E-170s yet. Delta actually jumped the gun. Until ACA operated a A320 in revenue service, they could keep flying for DCI. Does Republic actually operate the E-170 yet? I don't know. Anyway I will call the union today and see what they say.

 

[michael707767]

Surplus1, just got off the phone with the MEC. They said CHQ will not be treated any different and they are already talking to the company about this situation.

 

[ACAFACVG]

Hmmmmm.........OK General...If you believe that giving a contract to Midwest Express (or Skyway or whatever they call themselves these days) doesn't help the bottom line one of your competitors (Midwest Airlines) then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to look at. Wonder how you are going to feel when some of YOUR FURLOUGHS (which you claim to care sooo much about) that ACA has hired will be back on the street and be replaced by MIDWEST FURLOUGHS that Skyway may put in the Dojet for less money. You guys are really "restoring the profession" now.

Once again the gang that can't shoot straight, better known as the DL MEC has missed the ball again. They would rather see some of their furloughs back on the street (and be replaced by furloughs from another airline) than to allow "inferior" pilots at a DL Connection carrier an opportunity to fly larger aircraft, even though these aircraft have nothing to do with DL operations. They missed the ball when they decided flying EMB 120s was beneath them and allowed DL to outsource flying to ASA and Comair in 1982, then they screwed up again when they had the chance to bring this flying back on DL property by merging seniorty lists when DL bought ASA and Comair. Wonder what their next brilliant move will be??

It would be just awful if they thought out of the box just a little bit and used their leverage in negotations for pay cuts to get Comair and ASA fully integrated into Delta and force the company to stop the outsourcing of DL flying to outside companies. Wow, that would stop the whipsaw DL is using among Chautauqa, Comair, ASA, and Skyway too. What a novel idea!!! But then they would have to work with "inferior" pilots from Comair and ASA and we just can't have that at Big D can we?

 

[michael707767]

then they screwed up again when they had the chance to bring this flying back on DL property by merging seniorty lists when DL bought ASA and Comair.

First of all let me say I thought we should have merged lists with CMR and ASA. However, explain to me how merging them in would have brought this flying back to the DL property? It would have brought some back sure, but not all. We still would have had the same scope which allowed outsourcing. So the question would have been how much would we have all been willing to give up to get scope giving a merged list all the flying, and would DL management have allowed it no matter what we were willing to give up?

 

[FDJ2]

Surplus and BVT,

The definition of "permitted aircraft" is consistent throughout the DAL PWA and the DAL PWA is being enforced consistently.

If an air carrier flies permitted and other than permitted aircraft then the exemption specified in section 1 does not apply unless that aircraft is not flown for DAL and it is configured with 70 or less seats. Nothing in that conflicts with the definition of a permitted aircraft since we are talking about other than permitted aircraft.

Also, nothing in the DAL PWA is a limitation on ACA. ACA is free to do whatever they want. The limitations are on DAL. DAL can not contract out DL code flying under the section 1D exemption to ACA if ACA chooses to fly Airbus aircraft configured with greater than 70 seats.

If DAL wanted CMR to fly greater than 70 seat aircraft DAL could do that by simply merging the seniority lists, and operating CMR in accordance with section 1.C of the DAL PWA. Note: that does not mean DAL would have to merge the companies, just the pilots lists in order to comply with both the DAL and CMR PWAs. That's exactly how DAL operates Song. Song is an affiliate that operates other than permitted aircraft. If DAL management chooses to operate CMR under the limitations of section 1D, then that is management's decision.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

OK, so we are really tring to understand all this. I've got all the ands, fors, and permitteds down. What the question being asked is, is Skyway able to operate the Dojets under Delta code?