FurloughedAgain said:
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.
