RJDC 6/26 update

[180ToTheMarker]

It will be interesting--and a lot of guys on the DCI side don't seem to want our furloughs to come back---that is too bad. A lot of them used to fly for Comair and ASA

Easy General, the majority of ASA guys want the furloughs back...why wouldn't we? If a solution presents itself that works in everyone's favor -long term- then lets go for it. Some of our guys may not want you DAL boys back and they are probably more vocal about it than the others, therefore there is a perception of hostility from us, but thats truly not the case with 90% of our pilot group.

 

[USCtrojan]

Just look at ALPA's history. They will not just give up jobs, they will fight to keep them thru J4J or a scheme like MDA---that happened at USAir and United recently. At the same time, Dalpa is making sure that we get creditors together and try to come up with solutions. The only way, according to Grinstein, for this to work is to "earn our way out"---and that won't be with as many 50 seat or maybe even 70 seat jets with the low fares out there. You are right that the costs have to come down---but Delta is not exactly like Southwest and the rest--we do have a profitable INTL area--and that combined with a better utilized domestic operation can yeild results. Everyone has their own opinions--that is correct.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Once again, I don't understand. Please help. ALPA has fought for jobs, at the expense of who? What happened to the regional pilots that were displaced/furloughed because of jetforjobs? Is that what ALPA's history is about? Screwing over fellow pilots in favor of mainline? Also, mainline pilots have been screaming for years that regionals like ASA and Comair "bring down the profession, because of cheap labor." What is jetforjobs doing then? Is it okay then to lower wages, displace/furlough reginal pilots, and grant labor in favor of a mainline pilot whose company can no longer support him/her? Isn't that completely contradictory to what mainline has been trying to do all along?

dalpa sure isn't making any friends. You're fighting a lot of people. On one hand you're fighting Management, okay, that's a given. Then add wholly owned subs, ASA and Comair. And don't forget the LCC's. And let's face it. LCC's are kicking the crud out of all the traditional mainline carriers. I'm not a Tactical General, but strategy 101 says fighting anything more than one front complicates things exponentially. Add to that an impending Bankruptcy. dalpa needs friends at a time when they seem to be shrugging everyone off.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Scope is the Guardian. Jobs are the Key.

Fam2c said,

"...if airlines want to make money they will need to match the proper sized aircraft to the correct routes and those aircraft will need to operated at cost levels appropriate to the available revenue. 100 seat small jets are going to be a big part of the short-haul transportation system one way or another. Any mechanism that prevents this from happening is doomed to failure. In theory scope clauses may "protect the profession" by attempting to prevent the transfer of work to smaller aircraft operated by pilots with lower wages and benefits"

For what its worth there is no mechanism at Delta or any other major airline which prevents the use of 50...70...90...100...150...or 250+ passenger airplanes from being operated.

The scope CLAUSE is just that. An exception. Scope language (which every contract has, by the way) in its most basic form states that all work which is performed by company ABC must be done by employees on the ABC seniority list.

The scope clause attaches exceptions -- essentially undesirable work. This is work which, in the past, has been abandoned by the workers at ABC who have then permitted the company to outsource that work.

There is not a SINGLE work group that has granted such an exception to 100 passenger aircraft. Even at companies such as US Airways which have, in the recent past, abandoned virtually all scope restrictions they still have payrates on the books for aircraft such as the DC9-10, Bac 1-11, F-28, F-100, BAe 146, etc... 100 seat airplanes.

Calling an airplane an "RJ" or "Small Jet" does not in and of itself suddenly transform the aircraft into a low-cost, profit-making machine.

A 737-800 "RJ" would not suddenly be profitable at Delta. An Airbus 320 "RJ" would not magically save US Airways.

For the most part the cost structure of the "RJ" is MADE inexpensive by all of us! Not just the pilots, but also dispatchers, schedulers, cleaners, caterers, ground support staff, etc.... all who have lower compensation and substandard work rules. We are Delta's LCC.

The Delta pilots are not preventing Delta from flying 90-120 seat aircraft. They are simply saying, "If you want to fly em' -- we have to do the flying". It is then up to DALPA and Delta Management to negotiate payrates and (if they truly are to make an "MDA style" agreement) work-rules to do the job.

If the Delta pilots hope to recover flying that they deemed undesirable in the past, they're going to have to think outside of the box.

Ideally that would mean a merger with 10 year fences to protect career expectations.

More likely it may mean going to a US Airways-type system where a single seniority list has been created (wholly-owned -> MidAtlantic -> mainline) with several "tiers" which are fenced from one another and operate under completely different contracts.

Delta and the Delta pilots are just going to have to sit back and decide where their priorities lie. And we are going to have to stop salivating over the potential to fly 100 seat airplanes for pennies on the dollar.

 

[General Lee]

furloughedagain,

You are correct. The main reason I would like to see the 100 seaters at mainline is to get back the 1030 furloughed pilots. DCI wants the 100 seaters to fly something bigger and get more money. It would be nice to find something in the middle---staple the list after a Comair/ASA merge, and have protective fences that allows no DCI furloughs and allows eventual upward movement---without Delta hiring "military yahoos" ahead of anyone else on the list. If people want to get hired at "Delta"---they start at the bottom of the list---not at the mainline level. Hey, Air Canada has CRJs. This isn't a new proposal for me---I would like the infighting to stop, more security for everyone, and for "Delta" to survive and have the correct airplanes on the correct routes. Maybe there will be some of this discussed at the negotiations---which should start soon. But, I bet there would have to be a long period between the next contracts for all of us---like 5 years.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Fam2c said,
For what its worth there is no mechanism at Delta or any other major airline which prevents the use of 50...70...90...100...150...or 250+ passenger airplanes from being operated.

That's all very logical at face value and there's a degree of truth in everything you say. You just don't say it all.

Once the group at ABC declines to do a particular type of work it makes and accepts a presumption or two. One presumption is that the Company will not have a need for that type of work. The second is that the work may be "outsourced" to a subsidiary or subcontractor. Both of those presumptions (they really should be called assumptions) have been made by the Delta pilot group and most other mainline pilot groups.

The conflict arises from attempts to continuously manipulate the Scope clause in and effort to recover retroactively that which has already been forfeited. That is the misguided aspect of Scope. Once you give it away you can't take it back. When those recovery attempts cease, so will the conflicts.

Hingsight is always 20/20 but foresight is a little different and unpredictable. The portion of the work identified in the past as undesirable to the mainline pilot group was not deemed unecessary by the Company. Result: outsourcing occurred in ever increasing quantity. Unforseen changes in the industry hae exacerbated the problem

Neither the Company, the subsidiaries or the subcontractors did this to the Delta pilots. They did it to themselves.

Now that their predictable future has come into question and the foresight has proven to be flawed, hindsight begins to take over and they seek to recoup the work that they formally forfeited, voluntarily. They expect to recover that work and believe that it is their right to do so. They are wrong.

That would be fine but for one minor detail. The forfeited work is now being done by another man and it belongs to him. For the Delta pilots to get it back, it follows they must take it away from whomever is doing it now. Problem: the man now doing that work has no intention of giving it up to benefit the Delta pilots and create his own demise. His right to keep it, exceeds their right to get it back. Result = Conflict. That's where we are today and no amount of rhetoric, no definition of Scope clauses, and no labor union is going to change that.

The dividing line is arbitrary and was created by the Delta pilots. Nevertheless, it does exist. It was drawn in 1996. It establishes a "glass ceiling" of 70-seats for subsidiaries/subcontractors. That ceiling was not challenged when created and has become the precedent by default.

In the year 2000 (C2K) the Delta pilots sought to re-draw that line and were partially successful. That partial success was not acceptable to the non-Delta pilots. It was challenged and has given rise to litigation that is as yet unsettled. Renewed attempts will not solve the problem and will only increase the conflicts of interest.

Periodic attempts to redraw the line have never been abandoned by the Delta pilots. Regretting their former decision to draw the artificial line at 70-seats, they have continuously sought to take back the 70-seat flying completely or to limit its expansion. Every aspect of this effort is detrimental in the extreme to the people that are now doing that work. They should not have to give it up and their very survival depends on a successful effort to prevent it from being taken away.

Between the glass ceiling of 70-seats max and the actual low end of the mainline work today lies a gray area that neither the mainline (Delta pilots) nor the subsidiaries (DCI) have entered as yet. That is defined by the gap between DAL's smallest aircraft and DCI's largest aircraft, i.e., the 71-100+ seat range. This is virgin territory for both groups.

We all know that current market conditions indicate that this "gap" should be filled. The Company is in fact free to fill it, but only if that aircraft is operated by Delta pilots under the mainline contract. Market conditions do not permit the Company to do so with economic feasibility. The cost/benefit of operating such and aircraft under the current Delta PWA is not viable. If that size aircraft is to be placed in operation successfully by Delta, something has to give. That is the problem.

There are four potential solutions, IMO: 1) Don't operate that aircraft. 2) Operate it at mainline under the current contract or a renegotiated contract. 3) Place it at DCI; negotiate new pay scales. 4). Create a new subsidiary with a new contract; staff the cockpit with Delta pilots. Staff other positions with "new hires" (like Song)

No 1 - Not a viable option for the Company and should be unsatisfactory to both pilot groups. No. 2 - Marginal; It would require a "contract-within-a-contract" substantially different from the current Delta PWA (including the proposed concessions). Long-term drawbacks to the Delta PWA. Does not include ASA/CMR. No. 3 - Feasible; involves negotiating on two fronts a) changes to the Delta PWA scope clause, b) wage negotiations at the regionals (ASA/CMR). Both can be done by Letter of Agreement. No. 4 - Marginal. Possible high start up costs; new operating certificate; another layer of management. Could be sold. Does not include ASA/CMR.

If the Company decides to purschase such an aircraft, DCI pilots (ASA/CMR) should not expect that it will be placed at DCI. There is no entitlement or implied "right" to that and there should be no expectations . This is Delta pilots' "territory". DCI pilots should also avoid competing with Delta pilots for this aircraft, provided Delta pilots cease and desist from attempting to take or limit 70-seat equipment. Why? Because a substantial number of Delta pilots are currently furloughed. Option No. 3 -Should the Company prefer option No. 3, Delta and DCI pilots could agree between themselves to share the flying. However, Delta furloughees should first be accomodated.This would be the only option that might permit shared access to the resulting new flying. Given that there are 1000 furloughed Delta pilots it would take almost 100 new aircraft to accomodate them all. Thus, there is not much chance that DCI pilots could expect to go there any time soon.

Should the Company take the position of placing the aircraft at DCI, it should be the Company's responsiblity to propse and negotiate a contractual solution with the pilot groups. This will only work if the Delta and DCI pilots agree internally before the fact.

Jets for Jobs, in my book, does not apply to any new aircraft with more than 70-seats and is not a consideration. This is "new equipment" within the seat range already controlled by the Delta pilots.

In aircraft with 70 or fewer seats, Jets for Jobs in any form should not be considered by the ASA/CMR pilots. However, if the Delta pilots remove the limits on the number of 70-seat aircraft and the restrictions on 50-seat aircraft, I see no reason why ASA/CMR pilots should be unwilling to accomodate furloughed Delta pilots on the bottom of the seniority list and in preference to new outside pilots. Resignation of seniority by Delta pilots would of course go away.

If the Delta pilots hope to recover flying that they deemed undesirable in the past, they're going to have to think outside of the box.

Recovery of flying already forfeited is not dooable short of a merger no matter how far outside the box they think. Attempts at this will only increase conflict between the groups.

Ideally that would mean a merger with 10 year fences to protect career expectations.

The negotiating capital required to effect a merger between the groups makes this option unfeasible. The Company would "charge" more than any of us should be willing to pay. A staple might benefit a few very junior pilots after a decade and could hurt all senior pilots. Why pay for something that does not benefit you in the foreseable future.

More likely it may mean going to a US Airways-type system where a single seniority list has been created (wholly-owned -> MidAtlantic -> mainline) with several "tiers" which are fenced from one another and operate under completely different contracts.

Bad idea. The protocols of the USAirways system are untenable. A modification of the system, such as Option 3, above, is doable but the terms are a completely different ball game from anything like USAirways. That "deal" can only be described as a masterpiece of incompetence. Soory, I know you came from there, but the truth is everyone got shafted by that.

Delta and the Delta pilots are just going to have to sit back and decide where their priorities lie. And we are going to have to stop salivating over the potential to fly 100 seat airplanes for pennies on the dollar.

To your first sentence, agreed. To your second sentence -- I don't think anyone at Comair is salivating over the potential of getting 100-seat airplanes. This would and should require an agreement, before the fact, with the Delta pilots. IMO, any attempt to exclude them from a 100-seat airplane would be as big a mistake as their attempts to exclude us from the 70-seat airplanes. The last thing we need is a bidding war with the Delta pilots or anyone else over any airplane. We cannot expect them to abandon hegemony so that we can begin hegemony of our own. That behavior is already the cause of the conflict between us.

The Delta pilots are currently in a difficult position. Any attempt on our part to exploit their difficulties is equally as onerous as their past/current attempts to exploit us. We should attempt to work together without any effort by either party to gain advantage or to dominate the other. This conflict is not difficult to resolve provided we are both willing to avoid all attempts to infringe on each other's territory.
JMO.

 

[737 Pylt]

The problem I see is that yes you have 12 cockpit types and 20 sims. If you guys had to sim ride on your interview or were to have jeopardy rides every six months , half of you idiots would not be employed and delta could be making money. How can you look down on us when on a check ride they train you back to proficiency, a three day check ride, come on now! . Must be nice, You need to learn how to work for living The bad thing is that you get paid way to much for nothing, and you are killing delta. Get off you @SS an do something to help out, you babies!!!!!!!!!!

What a moronic statement! Let's see idiot, what is the washout rate at ASA??
What is it at DAL??
It scares me to think that d1ckheads like you are flying around innocent paying DAL passengers!
737

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Surplus1, you're on to something here. I enjoyed that, good reading, logical thoughts.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1, you're on to something here. I enjoyed that, good reading, logical thoughts.

Oh, oh. If its logical that means ALPA will probably reject it.

Happy 4th, All.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


Well, your diatribes aren't getting any shorter, but they do seem logical--and yes, that means Dalpa will reject them. The fact is that currently Delta is going after us (mainline) for large pay cuts, and since it is a "negotiation" (supposedly) that entitles us to negotiate something for us. Any new flying (the key being new--or new aircraft used for new flying) can be negotiated---and Dalpa has a history of using new lower pay scales for new "operations" ---like Delta Express in '96. That operation brought back furloughs and some went directly to Captain on the 737-200. Could this happen again? I bet it will----Dalpa would do anything to keep 100 seat or maybe some NEW 70 seat flying--and if that means lowering the pay scale to make it competitive--they probably will. They did it before. We do have 1030 more recalls to go over the next 2 years....(there will some retirements in there too)

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

Well, your diatribes aren't getting any shorter, but they do seem logical--and yes, that means Dalpa will reject them. The fact is that currently Delta is going after us (mainline) for large pay cuts, and since it is a "negotiation" (supposedly) that entitles us to negotiate something for us. Any new flying (the key being new--or new aircraft used for new flying) can be negotiated---and Dalpa has a history of using new lower pay scales for new "operations" ---like Delta Express in '96. That operation brought back furloughs and some went directly to Captain on the 737-200. Could this happen again? I bet it will----Dalpa would do anything to keep 100 seat or maybe some NEW 70 seat flying--and if that means lowering the pay scale to make it competitive--they probably will. They did it before. We do have 1030 more recalls to go over the next 2 years....(there will some retirements in there too)

Bye Bye--General Lee

General,

Got a question for ya. Which is better -- one logical diatribe or twenty doses of general BS?

I'm sure you will negotiate something for you and there's nothing wrong with that. I hope you can get some 100-seat airplanes for youselves and yes, I'm familiar with what you did in '96. I don't doubt you'll do it again if you have the chance. While you're at it you might also try a special deal for Song (similar to the Delta Express gambit). That could make it very competitive and keep it going, maybe even expand it.

If you can get the Company to put 70-seaters at the mainline, more power to ya. With a little effort you can even under bid USAirways to do it. I think they get $58/hr for the EMB-170, so maybe you could offer to do it for $50. If you give up your longevity, like they did, and create a new subsidiary with no retirement and no contract (like they did), who knows, you might get all the 70-seaters -- which is what you've been trying to do for years anyway. They haven't really got that MAA thing off the ground yet so there is still time for a move that would force them out of the market. That would sure boost the advantage for you in the North East.

Fear not, I don't expect you to consider how that would affect anyone else. You've never done that before so why start now. I'm sure you all would be happy to establish an industry leading concept averaging $10 bucks/hr below Mesa. In the process, maybe you can convince the Company to trade all or most of its 50-seat RJs for the new 100-seat machine, thus getting even more. 100 sounds like a good round number that would get all of your furloughs back in the air and you might get a left seat for yourself. With that plus the 100 seater you could even start hiring again.

Go for it my friend, just don't violate any more laws and get the union in more trouble. They haven't paid the piper yet for the last mess you all created.

I wish you luck and hope you don't have to take too big a hit in the wide-body pay rates or touch your A plan.

PS. If you want to be merciful and "nice", try to keep the "share the pain" cuts you negotiate for us to not more than 20%. Don't be too rough on what you demand from the Flight Attendants either -- remember they still give you coffee and it really is better -- without the visine.

Cheers.